[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Issue]
[Pages 3239-3431]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 3239]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
March 2, 1999
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, March 2, 1999
The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Stearns).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
March 2, 1999.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Cliff Stearns to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING HOUR DEBATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 19, 1999, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to 30 minutes, and each Member, except the majority
leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited to 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for 5
minutes.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF GUAM IMMIGRATION BILL AND MAGISTRATE BILL
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two pieces of
legislation which are important to the people of Guam. Today I am
introducing a bill which will significantly impact human rights
violations and criminal activity on Guam. During the past year, Guam
has experienced a significant influx of Chinese illegal immigrants.
Chinese crime syndicates organize boatloads of Chinese to illegally
enter the United States for an exorbitant fee of $8,000 to $10,000 per
person. After undergoing an arduous journey under fetid, unsanitary
conditions, the Chinese reach Guam dehydrated, hungry, disease-ridden
and sometimes beaten. Upon arrival, the smuggled Chinese become
indentured servants as they attempt to pay their passage to America.
Unlike other streams of illegal immigrants coming into the United
States, these immigrants come as a result of a well-organized series of
activities organized by crime syndicates. What they do, Mr. Speaker, is
they utilize the existing INS regulations, they utilize the INA law in
order to apply for political asylum when they arrive on Guam.
Guam's geographical proximity and asylum acceptance regulations make
it a prime target for crime syndicates. According to Guam's INS officer
in charge, Mr. David Johnston, about 700 illegal Chinese immigrants
traveled to Guam last year. Since the beginning of this year alone, 157
have been apprehended by INS, local Guam officials and the U.S. Coast
Guard. Since the INS does not have enough funds to detain the Chinese
illegal immigrants on Guam, they have proposed to release them to the
general populace without assistance. Fortunately, the Government of
Guam has offered its already strained resources to detain the illegal
aliens until they are ready to be adjudicated.
Mr. Speaker, Chinese crime syndicates have exploited Immigration and
Nationality Act asylum regulations for too long. The bill I introduce
does three things:
It would prohibit immigrants from applying for political asylum on
Guam, an exception from the INA law which is applicable to territories;
it would stipulate that the illegal immigrants have to be shipped or
deported out of Guam within 30 days; and that the Government of Guam
should be compensated for funds spent on the detention of immigrants
pursuant to this act. We must put a stop to this gross offense of human
rights and promotion of criminal activities.
Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a companion measure
introduced in the other body by Senator Daniel Inouye, S. 184. This
legislation permanizes a temporary judgeship in the State of Hawaii and
authorizes the addition of another judgeship for the State. It also
extends statutory authority for magistrate positions in Guam and the
CNMI.
Guam and the CNMI are the only jurisdictions, the only territories,
that are not allowed to have additional magistrates, and Guam's
district court is ranked number five in terms of its caseload
nationwide. We get a lot of cases because of the illegal immigrants,
because Guam is a central location. We have opportunities for drug
dealers and gun runners to use Guam as a transshipment point.
Bankruptcy, tax and civil cases have tripled in 1998.
This is a cost-saving measure. This will allow the Federal judiciary
to send an additional magistrate and not send one temporarily, which
runs about $400,000 a year.
____________________
UNFAIRNESS IN TAX CODE: MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very
diverse district, probably the most diverse district in the State of
Illinois representing part of the city of Chicago and the south
suburbs, Cook and Will counties, and a lot of bedroom and rural and
farm communities.
When you represent a district as diverse as the one I have the
privilege of representing, you really have to listen to learn the
common concerns of such a diverse constituency. I find a pretty clear
message as I listen and learn the concerns of the people of the south
side of Chicago and the south suburbs and that is that the folks back
home want us to work together, they want us to find solutions, they
want us to meet the challenges, they want us to offer and work together
to find solutions.
I am pleased that, over the last 4 years, this Congress has responded
to that request to get things done. We have got some real
accomplishments that we all should be proud of:
Balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, a balanced
budget that is now projected to produce a $2.7 trillion overpayment of
extra tax revenue that is now known as a surplus.
The first middle-class tax cut in 16 years. It is going to benefit 3
million Illinois children who qualify for the $500 per child tax
credit.
The first welfare reform in a generation. That has now seen the
results of reducing Illinois welfare rolls by 28 percent.
And IRS reform that tames the tax collector and shifts the burden of
proof off the backs of the taxpayer and onto the IRS, so a taxpayer is
innocent until proven guilty with the IRS.
Folks back home say, ``That's pretty good. What are you going to do
next?'' When I listen to the folks back home over the last few weeks,
they tell me they want good schools, they want lower taxes, they want a
secure retirement. And it is our obligation to respond. That is really
what our Republican agenda is: to help our schools, to put more dollars
into the classroom and ensure that our schools are run by
[[Page 3240]]
local teachers and local parents and local administrators and locally
elected school board members, to lower the tax burden on the middle
class and to secure retirement by saving Social Security, providing
greater incentives to save for your own retirement.
But we also face what can be considered a great challenge but also an
opportunity and that is, what do we do with this so-called surplus,
this $2.7 trillion of extra money that is burning a hole in the pocket
of Washington? Somebody wants to do something with it. We know that.
But what are we going to do? That is a big debate, what to do with the
overpayment of $2.7 trillion.
The President says we should take 62 percent of that so-called
surplus and use it to save Social Security, and then he wants to spend
the rest on new government programs. Republicans say, we agree. We will
take 62 percent of the surplus for saving Social Security, but we want
to give the rest back in paying down the debt and lowering the tax
burden on the middle class, because our philosophy is that you can
spend your hard-earned dollars better back at home than we can for you
here in Washington.
Some say, ``Well, gee, why do we really need to lower taxes? You
know, people don't mind paying taxes.'' Here is why. Today our tax
burden is at its highest level ever in peacetime history for our
country. Today, for the average family back home in Illinois, 40
percent of their income goes to government at local, State and Federal
levels. In fact, 21 percent of our gross domestic product goes to the
Federal Government alone. And, since 1992, and I find this very
disturbing, the amount of taxes collected from individuals has gone up
63 percent. Clearly, the tax burden is too high, and the middle class
is paying the price.
I believe as we focus on ways to lower the tax burden on the middle
class that we should start with simplifying our Tax Code, looking for
the provisions in our Tax Code that discriminate against the middle
class, that discriminate against families. I believe it is time that we
eliminate discrimination in the Tax Code and work to simplify the Tax
Code.
As we set priorities, let us make the top priority eliminating the
discrimination against 21 million married working couples who, on
average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married
under our Tax Code. Is it not wrong that, under our Tax Code, if you
are married and work, you are going to pay higher taxes than an
identical couple living together outside of marriage? That is wrong.
$1,400 back home in Illinois is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior
College. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. It
replaces a washer and a dryer in a home for a middle-class Illinois
family.
I am pleased to tell you that 230 Members of this House, Republicans
and Democrats, have joined together to sponsor the Marriage Tax
Elimination Act. This year, as we work to lower the tax burden on
middle-class families, let us make elimination of the marriage tax
penalty the number-one priority to help families.
Mr. Speaker, we can do it if we work together. The same way that we
balanced the budget, the same way that we cut taxes for the middle
class, the same way that we reformed welfare, the same way that we
tamed the IRS, we can eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most
unfair provision in the U.S. Tax Code: the marriage tax penalty. I want
to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax
burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living
together outside of marriage.
Many may recall in January, President Clinton gave his State of the
Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the
budget surplus. Although we were prepared to dedicate 90 percent of the
budget surplus to saving Social Security, we agree with the President
that at least 62% of the Budget Surplus must be used to save Social
Security.
A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut
waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet
to the fire to balance the budget.
While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending for new
big government programs--we believe that a top priority after saving
Social Security and paying down the national debt should be returning
the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax
relief.
This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and
working poor than any Congress of the last half century.
I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by
asking these questions: Do Americans feel it's fair that our tax code
imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel it's fair
that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in
taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together
outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an
incentive to get divorced?
In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax
penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong.
Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both
spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in
holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They
pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the
marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes
society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a
disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with
children. In many cases it is a working women's issue.
Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly
affects middle class married working couples.
For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my
home district of Joliet, makes $31,500 a year in salary. His wife is a
tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $31,500 a year in
salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals,
they would pay 15%.
MARRIAGE PENALTY EXAMPLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School
Machinist teacher Couple H.R. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income........ $31,500 $31,500 $63,000 $63,000
Less personal exemption and 6,950 6,950 12,500 13,900
standard deduction.......... (singles
2)
Taxable income............... 24,550 24,550 50,500 49,100
( .15) ( .15) (partial ( .15)
.28)
Tax liability................ 3,682.5 3,682.5 8,635 7,365
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage penalty: $1,270.
Relief: $1,270.
But if they chose to live their lives in holy matrimony, and now file
jointly, their combined income of $61,000 pushes them into a higher tax
bracket of 28 percent, producing a tax penalty of $1,400 in higher
taxes.
On average, America's married working couples pay $1,400 more a year
in taxes than individuals with the same incomes. That's serious money.
Millions of married couples are still stinging from April 15th's tax
bite and more married couples are realizing that they are suffering the
marriage tax penalty.
Particularly if you think of it in terms of: a downpayment on a house
or a car, one year's tuition at a local community college, or several
months worth of quality child care at a local day care center.
To that end, U.S. Representative David McIntosh (R-IN) and U.S.
Representative Pat Danner (D-MO) and I have authored H.R. 6, The
Marriage Tax Elimination Act.
H.R. 6, The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, will increase the tax
brackets (currently at 15% for the first $24,650 for singles, whereas
married couples filing jointly pay 15% on the first $41,200 of their
taxable income) to twice that enjoyed by singles; H.R. 6 would extend a
married couple's 15% tax bracket to $49,300. Thus, married couples
would enjoy an additional $8,100 in taxable income subject to the low
15% tax rate as opposed to the current 28% tax rate and would result in
up to $1,215 in tax relief.
Additionally the bill will increase the standard deduction for
married couples (currently $6,900) to twice that of singles (currently
at $4,150). Under H.R. 6 the standard deduction for married couples
filing jointly would be increased to $8,300.
H.R. 6 enjoys the bipartisan support of 230 co-sponsors along with
family groups, including: American Association of Christian Schools,
American Family Association, Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for
America, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern
Baptist Convention, Family Research Council, Home School Legal Defense
Association, the National Association of Evangelicals and the
Traditional Values Coalition.
It isn't enough for President Clinton to suggest tax breaks for child
care. The President's child care proposal would help a working couple
afford, on average, three weeks of day care. Elimination of the
marriage tax penalty
[[Page 3241]]
would give the same couple the choice of paying for three months of
child care--or addressing other family priorities. After all, parents
know better than Washington what their family needs.
We fondly remember the 1996 State of the Union address when the
President declared emphatically that, quote ``the era of big government
is over.''
We must stick to our guns, and stay the course.
There never was an American appetite for big government.
But there certainly is for reforming the existing way government does
business.
And what better way to show the American people that our government
will continue along the path to reform and prosperity than by
eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are on the verge of running a surplus. It's
basic math.
It means Americans are already paying more than is needed for
government to do the job we expect of it.
What better way to give back than to begin with mom and dad and the
American family--the backbone of our society.
We ask that President Clinton join with Congress and make elimination
of the marriage tax penalty . . . a bipartisan priority.
Of all the challenges married couples face in providing home and
hearth to America's children, the U.S. tax code should not be one of
them.
Let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty and do it now!
[From the Chicago Tribune, January 31, 1999]
How To Handle the Budget Surplus
Washington.--Four years ago when I was first elected to
Congress, I ran on the need for fiscal restraint in
Washington, D.C., and a return of power to people back home.
We fought for our belief that we could balance the budget and
provide tax relief for America's working families. For months
we were told by Washington insiders and the media that it
couldn't be done. Well, we proved them wrong, and we did it
ahead of schedule.
Today Congress has a great opportunity as well as a
significant challenge before it. A massive surplus of extra
tax revenue is projected as a result of a balanced budget.
The challenge lies in what Congress chooses to do with the
budget surplus.
Saving Social Security is the first priority for the
surplus. It's a bipartisan consensus. Last fall, House
Republicans showed tremendous responsibility and leadership
by passing a plan that earmarked 90 percent of the surplus
for Social Security. President Clinton used this month's
State of the Union message to call for setting aside a
minimum of 62 percent of the surplus ($2.7 trillion over 15
years) for Social Security.
Although we were prepared to set aside much more to save
Social Security, Republicans agree to the president's request
to set aside 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security.
But the question remains of what to do with the rest.
President Clinton proposes to spend it on big, new, expensive
programs; Republicans want to give this back as tax relief.
Those who oppose tax cuts will fight tooth and nail against
lowering today's tax burden. According to the U.S. Treasury,
the total income tax take from individuals and families has
increased 63 percent since 1992. In fact, according to the
Tax Foundation, if you add up the local, state and federal
tax burden, taxes are almost 40 percent of the average
family's income. Wouldn't most people agree that today's tax
burden is too high?
We can save Social Security and cut taxes at the same time.
Some say we can't--they were the same ones who opposed
balancing the budget and cutting taxes. We proved them wrong.
For example, using only 25 percent of the surplus (allowing
for an additional 13 percent of the surplus to be dedicated
to shoring up Social Security or paying down the national
debt) we could enact a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut
for all American taxpayers while still eliminating the unfair
marriage tax penalty and relieving family farms and family
businesses of the inheritance or ``death'' tax.
The president's step gives us a window of opportunity to
save Social Security. We commend the president for his new-
found willingness to work with us to save Social Security,
secure retirement savings, provide sorely needed tax relief
and equip the next generation to compete in a global economy.
But now that we have agreed on the first step in saving
Social Security, we need to focus on the details. It is
irresponsible to spend the people's surplus on new, big
government programs. We must give this money back to the
American people. Saving Social Security, paying down our
national debt and offering real and substantial tax relief to
all working Americans are three strong ways to spur our
economy and lead the way into the next century.
U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REQUIRING POST OFFICE TO OBEY LOCAL LAND
USE LAWS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has worked for years on
helping communities find ways to promote livability, I am excited to
see the attention that has been accorded lately to the livable
communities movement.
It is clear that we do not need a lot of new rules and regulations
and mandates and stipulations to be able to make sure that we achieve
that goal. It is indeed the simplest step for us to take for the
Federal Government to just be a constructive partner with State, local
governments and the private sector, working with them to make
communities work better. One small but important step would be to have
Federal agencies like the post office obey the same rules and
regulations requirements that we require on homeowners and businesses.
There are over 40,000 post offices all across America who are these
little outposts that bring communities together, and there are
opportunities from coast to coast, border to border to be able to
promote livable communities by being constructive partners.
Unfortunately, the post office has not always lived up to that ideal.
Today, in the USA Today, there is an article about Tully, New York, and
their struggle with the post office. Last week, it was Byron,
California, and Discovery Bay.
Now, I bring this forward not with any animosity toward the Postal
Service. To the contrary. I think it is terrific that we can, for less
than a dollar, send three handwritten letters all across the country,
have them be delivered in a matter of days, that they are delivered by
employees who give back to the community, who usually do not just give
the postal service but they do so with a smile.
It is a critical function that helps unite and bring people together.
In fact, main street post offices are one of the anchors of small town
America that add to the business district, that add to the flavor of
those communities; and, in fact, that is why it is so important that
the post office be a good citizen and a full partner for livability.
That is why my legislation has been endorsed by the Trust for
Historic Preservation, by main street associations representing small-
and medium-sized businesses all across the country, why the National
Governors Association is concerned about this, why the post office
itself has recently declared a moratorium on closing and is
readdressing its relationship with the community. They claim far fewer
problems than in the past and that there is a new era under Postmaster
Henderson.
I have met with the Postmaster General. I am impressed with his
commitment, but I think the best way to express this commitment is to
stop fighting this legislation and get behind it, to make clear its
support for a new era of partnership.
Why should the post office be exempt from planning, zoning and
building codes that homeowners and businesses in communities across the
country must adhere to? Why, since the post office is such a critical
part of our community, should the community not be as involved with
potential relocation issues as they are in helping pick which version
of the Elvis stamp we are going to have?
I have discussed on the floor of this House in the past problems we
have had in Leon County, Florida, where the Postal Service decided that
it would not abide by the same groundwater environmental standards for
runoff on their parking lot as other private businesses; or where in
Ball Ground, Georgia, the Postal Service was not going to abide by a
comprehensive plan to help metropolitan Atlanta deal with its critical
environmental problems.
{time} 1045
Well, after making, as it were, a Federal case out of it, the
personal intervention, I think, of the Postmaster General, it looks
like we are moving towards resolution in Leon County, Florida, and in
metropolitan Georgia.
[[Page 3242]]
But it should not have to be a major battle. It is time for the post
office to stop fighting this legislation. It is time for the post
office to institutionalize with us to make sure that the Postal Service
is a full partner for the next millennium of livable communities in
America.
Mr. Speaker, this small step can lead the way for the Federal
Government itself across the country to provide that sort of
partnership for livability.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS ON H.R. 416, FEDERAL
RETIREMENT COVERAGE CORRECTIONS ACT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement. I want
to inform the House of the Committee on Rules' plans in regard to H.R.
416, the Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act. The bill was
favorably reported by both the Committee on Government Reform and the
Committee on Ways and Means.
The Committee on Rules will meet on Wednesday to grant a rule which
may require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record
and which may limit amendments to the bill. In this case, amendments to
be preprinted would need to be signed by the Member and submitted to
the Speaker's table by the close of legislative business on Wednesday.
Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to assure that
their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office
of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with
the rules of the House. It is not necessary to submit amendments to the
Committee on Rules or to testify as long as the amendments comply with
House rules.
Mr. Speaker, a Dear Colleague letter announcing this potential
amendment process was mailed to all Member offices yesterday.
____________________
COMMANDANCY OF THE ALAMO
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 3 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, as is tradition by members
of the Texas delegation. Today is Texas Independence Day, and today I
would like to follow in the tradition that has been done for years, to
read a letter that was written from Colonel Travis, who was the
commandant, who was the head of the Texans who were in the Alamo that
was written on February 24, 1836, from Bexar in Texas.
To all people of Texas and all Americans in the world:
Fellow citizens and compatriots, I am besieged by a
thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have
sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours
and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender
at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the
sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with
a cannon shot, and our flag still proudly from the walls. I
shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the
name of liberty and patriotism and everything dear to the
American character to come to our aid with all dispatch. The
enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt
increase to three or four thousand in 4 or 5 days. If this
call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long
as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is
due to his own honor and to that of his country--victory or
death.
Signed, William Barret Travis, Lieutenant Colonel Commander
of the Texans in the Alamo.
P.S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in
sight, we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found
in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20
or 30 head of cattle.
____________________
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.
____________________
AMERICAN CITIZENS OF PUERTO RICO AND THE TERRITORIES MUST BE RECOGNIZED
AS EQUALS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo)
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many of you saw the
article ``Talking About a Revolution'' in Roll Call yesterday. The
article highlighted the 45th anniversary of the attack perpetrated by a
group of terrorists on the U.S. House of Representatives on March 1,
1954. Just like Russell Weston, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and
others, the terrorists in the 1954 attack were also American citizens.
In commemorating such an anniversary, I wish that the same
consideration to detail was provided on other issues concerning Puerto
Rico. In our society it seems that it is the negative that consumes our
attention, and it is a shame that this terrorist and cowardly act
continues to be resurfaced without ever mentioning that the
perpetrators were part of a small Fascist party then existing in Puerto
Rico.
The article did not choose to highlight also that today, March 2, is
the 82nd anniversary of the day when all Puerto Ricans and those born
in Puerto Rico thereafter became U.S. citizens through an act of
Congress and that it is also the 100th anniversary of the founding of
the Puerto Rico regiment of volunteers which later became the 65th
Infantry Army regiment, one of the most decorated U.S. Army units of
this century. Thus, 100 years ago today, our predecessors in this U.S.
Congress were discussing the issue of Puerto Rico and voted on and
approved the organization of the first body of troops on the territory
which they called the Porto Rico Regiment of Voluntary Infantry, 18
years before we were granted citizenship. We have been equals in war
and death, but we are discriminated against in peace and life.
Our rights to liberty and free speech are intrinsic rights of our
democracy that have been defended since our Nation's inception. As
troops from the United States have fought to ensure and maintain
freedom and democratic values everywhere and anywhere that has been
needed in this world in this century, 197,034 soldiers hailing from
Puerto Rico have fought shoulder to shoulder with our fellow citizens
from every other State.
When we consider the century that binds us together, it is clear that
the interrelationship between the United States and its citizens in
Puerto Rico is most evidenced in our participation in defense of
democracy. Military leaders such as General Douglas MacArthur, the
supreme commander for the allied power during the Korean War, described
it best:
``The Puerto Ricans forming the ranks of the gallant 65th Infantry on
the battlefields of Korea by valor, determination and a resolute will
to victory give daily testament of their invincible loyalty to the
United States and the fervor of their devotion to those immutable
standards of human relations to which the Americans and Puerto Ricans
are in common dedicated. They are writing a brilliant record of
achievement in battle, and I am proud indeed to have them in this
command. I wish that we may have many more men like them.''
It is unquestionable that every one of the 197,034 soldiers who have
served in the U.S. Armed Forces take the responsibility as U.S.
citizens very seriously, willing to give their lives for American
democratic values. But their sacrifice would not have been possible
without the patriotism and honor to duty evidenced by the support of
their families and all other American citizens in Puerto Rico. Who in
my generation in America does not know the story of the Sullivan
brothers in the Second World War? But how many Americans know that
during the Korean War Mrs. Asuncion Rodriguez Acosta from the town of
Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico, was the only American mother who had five sons
serving in the Korean front at the same time?
Despite this brilliant record of gallantry and courage, the policy of
the U.S. Government sets apart its 4 million American citizens in
Puerto Rico and the territories. We are good enough
[[Page 3243]]
to defend democracy throughout the world, but we are not good enough to
have the same rights, nor good enough to receive the same benefits as
all other American citizens in the 50 States. Are our sacrifices worth
any less by virtue of living in a territory?
The bottom line is, can the United States continue to support a
policy of discrimination in the Federal programs that are designed to
protect our Nation's most needed citizens, be it in health, housing and
economic prosperity?
A superficial mention of the terrorist attack dated 45 years ago only
detracts attention from the real issues and should not be allowed to
take the place of the in-depth discussions that the Nation should now
be engaged in, including how and when to eliminate discrimination.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and I urge all of my colleagues to take the
necessary steps to ensure that American citizens of Puerto Rico and the
territories be recognized as equals and that we be granted equal
consideration in all Federal programs together with our fellow citizens
in the 50 States. Not only have we earned that right, but not to do so
violates the most basic tenets of our democratic system which is based
on the principle of equal rights to all. We cannot focus our attention
on what a terrorist chooses to do and ignore the responsibility of
Congress to direct a stop to discrimination. We must focus in our
commitment to and the defense of our cherished American values.
____________________
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, as Congress this week begins the debate on
reinstating the independent counsel law, I think, as a student of
history, it is interesting to review what has taken place regarding
that law.
Regarding congressional action on that matter certain questions are
raised:
Should an administration investigate itself?
Should the alleged wrongdoing of a major administration official be
left to the attorney general or to a special counsel or an independent
counsel?
Those are the questions that are now being asked as we face the
expiration of the current independent counsel law.
Some say the problem is the law, some say the problem is the
independent counsel. It is interesting to note, if we review history,
what goes around comes around both in law and also in politics. A brief
review of the independent counsel law, if folks would just take a
moment to do that, reveals that we are about to return to where we
started if the independent counsel law is not renewed.
Mr. Speaker, even in 1972, President Nixon suggested the appointment
of a special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate scandal. As we
know from history, President Nixon in 1973 also ordered the Attorney
General to fire the Watergate special prosecutor. Those actions led
Congress and President Carter to enact in 1973 an Ethics in Government
Act. All totaled, the special prosecutor law was invoked 11 times from
1978 to 1982 with three appointments of special prosecutors.
In 1983, that law was revised and renewed for another 5 years. In
1987, with the Iran-Contra statute, when it came up for
reauthorization, and although it gave great heartburn, President Reagan
in December of 1987 signed the reimplementing bill into law. With three
investigations during the Bush administration, President Bush let the
statute expire in 1992.
With a new administration and new scandals, the Attorney General,
Janet Reno, under the general law authority, appointed Robert Fisk as a
special counsel, not an independent counsel, but under her general
authority to investigate Whitewater, and she initiated that action on
June 30, 1994.
Vowing to head up an administration with the highest ethical
standards, President Bill Clinton took the step of being the first
President since Carter to endorse the institution of an independent
counsel law. On July 1, 1994, President Clinton signed the
reauthorization bill and commented about the law, and let me quote from
the President: ``a foundation stone for trust between the government
and our citizens.'' He dismissed charges that it had been, and I quote,
``a tool of partisan attack and a waste of taxpayer funds.'' Instead,
he said the statute was, and let me quote, ``has been in the past and
is today a force for government integrity and public confidence,'' end
quote.
The Attorney General spoke before Congress, the same Attorney General
who will be having the Department of Justice advocate the end of the
independent counsel law, and stressed the government's and her own
support for the bill, and let me quote what she said:
As a vehicle to further the public's perception of fairness
and thoroughness, and to avert even the most subtle influence
of what may appear in an investigation of highly-placed
executive officials.
{time} 1100
How interesting it is how the law comes around and goes around. How
interesting it is that today the shoe is on the other foot. The
administration is about to advocate the abolition of the Independent
Counsel law. I think we just need to take a few minutes and look at
history and see how people have taken various stands, depending on
whose ox is getting gored.
I like to reflect on history, and I think this is a little lesson in
history, particularly as it deals with the appointment of an
Independent Counsel.
____________________
MEDICARE REFORM: DO NOT TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the National Commission on the Future
of Medicare will wrap up its work sometime this month. The Commission
members were given the task of putting Medicare on solid financial
footing. Unfortunately, they want to save Medicare by privatizing it.
Under the Commission proposal, Medicare would no longer pay directly
for health care services. Instead, it would provide each senior with a
voucher good for part of the premium for private coverage. Medicare
beneficiaries could use this voucher to buy into the fee-for-service
plan sponsored by the Federal Government, so-called traditional
Medicare, or join a private plan.
The Commission proposal creates a system of health coverage, but it
abandons the principles of comprehensiveness and egalitarianism that
make Medicare such a valuable national program, an essential national
service for America's elderly.
Today the Medicare program is income-blind. All seniors have access
to this same level of care. The Commission proposal markets a class-
based health care system of two-tiered health care: excellent care for
the affluent, only barely adequate or worse health care for the less
well off.
The idea that vouchers would empower seniors to choose a health plan
that best suits their needs is a myth. The reality is that they will be
forced to accept whatever health care plan that they can afford.
Medicare beneficiaries have been able to enroll in private managed care
plans for sometime now, and their experience, unfortunately, does not
bode well for a full-fledged privatization effort.
Most managed care plans are for profit. The theory that they can
sustain significantly lower costs than traditional Medicare simply is
not panning out. Because managed care plans are profit-driven, they do
not tough it out when those profits are not so forthcoming. We learned
that the hard way last year, when 96 HMOs deserted more than 400,000
seniors because the business did not meet their profit objectives.
Before the Medicare program was launched in 1965, private insurance
was
[[Page 3244]]
the only option for seniors, and more than half of them were uninsured.
Insurers did not want to sign seniors up because they tend to actually
use their health care coverage.
The private insurance market has changed a good deal since then, but
it still avoids high-risk enrollees, and tries not to pay for high-cost
services. The fact that 43 million Americans under age 65 are uninsured
and the broad-based support for managed care reform in this Congress
and all over the country should at the very least give us pause when we
consider turning over the Medicare program to the private sector.
Medicare Commission leaders would also save Medicare money by raising
the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. It is interesting timing
for such a proposal, given the growing number of uninsured in the 55 to
64 age range. These individuals cannot find an insurer now who will
take them, and they were certainly a better risk as 55- to 64-year-olds
for insurers than 65- and 66-year-olds.
Shell games simply do not work in health care. Someone still has to
pay the bill when a person not yet eligible for Medicare becomes sick.
Delayed care received in emergency rooms does not serve the individual
or the public.
What is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Medicare Commission
likely proposal is what it does not tell us. It does not tell us how we
could make the current program more efficient while still maintaining
its egalitarian underpinnings and its orientation in providing the
right care to everyone, rather than simply the least expensive care.
The bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker. If we privatize Medicare, we
are telling America that not all seniors deserve the same care. We are
betting on a private insurance system that may not save us any money in
the long run, and certainly minimizes care by avoiding individuals who
are health care risks.
All this is to avoid the difficult questions. Selling off the
Medicare program, privatizing Medicare, turning over America's best
government program to insurance companies may be easy, but it is simply
wrong.
____________________
AMERICA'S SALMON STOCKS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue of
great importance to me and to my constituents in Washington State. I
have long been deeply concerned about our salmon stocks. I spent two
summers working on salmon rehabilitation in Alaska more than 50 years
ago. This little salmon pin that I'm wearing was a symbol for the
organization my father started in 1949. I have not come just lately to
an interest or commitment to salmon recovery.
Recently the Pacific Northwest salmon runs have drawn national
attention as the Puget Sound chinook salmon has been proposed for
listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act later
this month. This listing could have a devastating impact on the economy
and lifestyle we enjoy in the Northwest if we do not use our technology
and common sense. Disaster can be averted if we are granted enough
funding to make salmon recovery measures effective, and if we can
continue to engage local communities in the fight.
Of course, we must utilize all of the available science and
technology in our efforts to restore salmon populations. The people of
the Northwest have been around salmon all their lives. I believe the
will exists in our community not only to save but to enhance the salmon
runs.
Grass roots organizations have sprung up all over the region to deal
with this problem, and local governments in the area are forming their
own recovery plans. As long as citizen involvement remains a part of
the process and we rely on sound science and proper use of technology
available, I am confident that salmon runs can be shepherded back to
historic levels.
Federal dollars are absolutely essential if we are serious about
restoring salmon runs. The President has included $100 million in his
budget to help the salmon recovery. While I am encouraged that the
administration is turning its attention to this issue, the amount of
money the President has announced is wholly inadequate to address the
problem.
We cannot afford to waste time or money with small, ineffectual
measures. A large investment is necessary now if we want to avoid
larger costs in the future. It will be up to the Pacific Northwest to
spend our salmon dollars wisely, to make good on our commitment to
restore salmon runs.
Many people focus only on habitat restoration and natural spawning
when talking about this issue. These are vitally important, but we must
not lose sight of other elements in salmon recovery. Sound science and
technology must play a crucial role in any plan. We cannot use 1924
technology to solve a 1999 problem.
During my lifetime we in the Pacific Northwest have developed salmon
technology that has been successful around the world to accomplish
miracles in salmon production in Japan, Chile, and Scotland. It would
be foolish not to use it now in our own State. We know how to
successfully use remote egg boxes, spawning channels, over-wintering
sloughs, culvert mitigation, small stream rehabilitation, the
downstream migration of salmon stocks, returning adult salmon, and
predator control, and, yes, hatcheries. We have the technological
knowhow to avoid the pitfalls of the past. Thoughtfully and carefully,
we can bring the salmon back if we use all the tools that are
available.
Finally, our research into the life cycle of the salmon must
continue. We do not know all the factors that have led to a decline in
salmon populations, but we do know that more research is needed on the
subject. More data must be included on the GIS maps. Research is needed
on a variety of ocean and near-shore issues.
Bringing the salmon back to robust levels will not be an easy task,
but with the determination of the citizens of the Northwest, combined
with state-of-the-art technology and the proper level of Federal
support, we will be able to accomplish our goals with minimal impact.
____________________
TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY, AND WHERE WE SHOULD GO FROM HERE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague who
spoke earlier to acknowledge Texas Independence Day, today, March 2nd,
1999. But as my 7th grader said, who has the challenge of studying
Texas history, what a difference a century makes. I am very proud that
we can stand before us today acknowledging Texas Independence Day, in a
State that is diverse and recognizes all of the contributions that all
of the citizens have made to this great State.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about where we should go from here.
The impeachment process is over and the Constitution has been
preserved. Although this week we will see a number of confessions and
testimonies on television, I believe the American people want us to
move forward. Now is the time for reconciliation and healing, mending
and building relationships that were damaged that can be replaced.
Furthermore, I am ready to begin working toward enacting legislation
that will enhance the quality of life for all Americans. The
President's behavior, yes, was unacceptable, but they were not
impeachable offenses of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and
misdemeanors. To dwell on that, Mr. Speaker, does not get us where we
need to go.
I would simply like to ask us to get on with the people's business.
There is great responsibility in saving social security and preserving
Medicare. Social
[[Page 3245]]
security is an obligation that Congress must protect now and in the
future. Millions of Americans are depending upon this program and its
benefits. Social security is a lifeline for older Americans. It is time
to get on with the people's business. It is time to address the crises
in America.
I come from Texas. Today is its Independence Day. But it does not
mean that I rejoiced or was proud of the act, the heinous act against
James Byrd, Junior. I am proud of Jasper, Texas. I am proud of the
conviction. I am proud of the laws of this Nation. But we need to do
more to ensure that these heinous hate crimes are prevented, and that
we as a Nation make a national statement against hate crimes.
I want to see the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 passed by this
Congress expeditiously. I have named it after James Byrd, Junior, and
Matthew Shepherd. I would like to collaborate with members of the
Committee on the Judiciary and members of this House to pass once and
forever a Hate Crimes Prevention Act in this country. How can we go
forward and say that this was a heinous crime, and yet we do not want
to act against it? There is documentation that there are increased hate
crimes in America, and we must stand against them.
Just this morning I was in a hearing on Y2K and its relation to the
compliance with Y2K needs for the Defense Department. Let me thank the
Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science and the
oversight committee for looking at this important issue.
Many Americans are listening to disparate thoughts about this. Some
say, prepare like it is a natural disaster. I say, get the United
States prepared. We must work together in this Congress to ensure that
we are not unprepared for Y2K.
The census must be done right, and I hope my Republican friends will
join us and recognize that statistical sampling is the way to go. One
American should not be left out. We have work to do.
I come from the oil patch, the energy sector. Many believe that the
economy is going well, the engine of this country is strong. Let me
tell the Members, there are over 50,000 people who have been laid off
in the oil patch. We cannot leave them behind. I am appreciative of the
Secretary of Labor, who will be working with me.
I look forward to my colleagues supporting the Jobs Protection
Initiative Act, to get people back to work. I call upon the
administration to make a strong stand to help those who have been laid
off by low energy prices, and tell those laid-off individuals that they
do count. We are going to work together and make a difference.
Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a world responsibility. I
want to congratulate those who have come back from Nigeria and seen a
positive count and democracy growing in Africa. I want us to pass the
African Growth and Opportunity Act, to establish business bonds between
small and medium minority and women-owned businesses and Africans. I
want to see peace in Ethiopia and Sierra Leone.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say one thing, as I proceed to the
Committee on the Judiciary and a hearing later on this afternoon on the
Independent Counsel.
My good friend mentioned the comments of President Clinton about the
Independent Counsel being the foundation stone of trust between our
government and its citizens. The gentleman is right, he did say that.
But all of us say now that unfortunately, this past series of events
with Mr. Starr and his activities have broken the bonds of trust.
{time} 1115
I worked under Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor for the
Watergate proceedings. That is the standard of which we can comply. I
believe this country can get rid of corruption, but we do not need to
have an independent counsel that spends more time abusing the
Constitution than supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, I will go on record for looking forward to the
independent counsel statute expiring and getting rid of a fourth estate
of government and working with the Constitution and beginning to heal
this Nation, making sure, of course, that we do not have corruption in
government.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE BROADCAST OWNERSHIP FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that I will be
introducing the Broadcast Ownership for the 21st Century Act with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley).
Our bill will broadly deregulate the confining ownership limitations
imposed by the FCC on the television broadcast industry. As we approach
the dawn of a new century, it is time to reform the antiquated rules
and regulations of the FCC that they cling to in an effort to replicate
the communications world of the 1950s.
Mr. Speaker, today's entertainment choices are numerous and varied.
There is cable. There is direct satellite broadcast. There is Internet.
We are moving into high-definition television. Back in the 1950s, we
had three, four, five channels; today we have over 200-plus channels,
and many of them are digital.
We must allow our American corporations in the broadcast industry to
compete in the international area as well. So the objective of our bill
is deregulate and allow competition.
The FCC has failed to properly respond to a vastly different
marketplace. This agency appears to be consumed with a regulatory model
of government rather than the trimmed down, free-market approach that
the American people would like and one that the rest of the world is
beginning to embrace.
The modern economics of free, over-the-air television is rapidly
changing. The local broadcasters and networks continue to see steady
decline in viewers who are attracted to cable and satellite
programming, or who are using the Internet more and more as an
entertainment option.
In addition, the broadcasters and networks are faced with ever-
increasing costs for programming, especially sports programming.
Profitability and success hinges on their ability to create and own
more and more of their own programming.
The broadcast industry has also begun their conversion to digital by
beginning to deploy digital facilities. They have already begun
delivering a digital signal in America's top markets. The industry will
spend the better part of the next decade creating digital programming
and transforming their facilities to an all-digital environment. The
estimated cost of one digital television camera alone runs into the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. When all is said and done, each
individual broadcaster will have to spend millions and millions of
dollars converting to digital.
Mr. Speaker, if we deregulate this industry, they will be able to
compete and succeed. As everyone can see, the economics of the
broadcast industry today are based upon increasing costs and shrinking
profits. Unless that formula is changed, the era of free over-the-air
television will never be the same.
What the American people have come to expect as quality network and
local programming may be altered to a world of syndicated reruns and
limited original programming. The heart and soul of America's favorite
form of entertainment will become one based on pay services.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 attempted to provide relief for
broadcast ownership. For instance, the Telecom Act asked the FCC to
review all existing rules and regulations and eliminate those that were
unnecessary. In addition, the act required the FCC to review the
existing duopoly rules, which limit ownership to just one television
station in a local market, in order to provide relief when needed. The
act also specifically instructed the FCC to grandfather all television
local marketing agreements, LMAs.
[[Page 3246]]
Well, Mr. Speaker, three years later, the FCC has failed to act and
we need to move forward. Let us get the FCC to act today. This bill
will provide a great nudge. The Stearns-Frost-Oxley bill will revise
the duopoly rules to allow UHF-VHF ownership combinations in the same
local market and to allow UHF-VHF combinations in separate local
markets that may have overlapping coverage contours, such as in the
Washington, D.C. and Baltimore markets. This bill will also permanently
grandfather all LMAs.
But, Mr. Speaker, within this bill, it still allows the FCC to have
unusual powers. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the commission that permitting such ownership, operation, or control
will not significantly harm competition or will not significantly harm
the preservation of the diversity of media voices in the television
market, then it will allow them to move forward.
Mr. Speaker, many nations prevent American companies from owning any
percentage of their domestic broadcast industry. We must institute
reciprocity and this bill starts this process now. Our bill will allow
only those nations that will allow reciprocal ownership arrangements
for American companies or individuals to move into American markets.
So this legislation will fundamentally change the economic dynamics
of the broadcast industry to continue its vibrant tradition. To provide
reciprocity. To help broadcasters to eliminate duplicative efforts. To
make them more competitive and decrease regulation. That, Mr. Speaker,
is the purpose of the bill.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until noon.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 21 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Reverend James David Ford, D.D., offered the following
prayer:
May Your blessing, O God, be with all who seek to serve in public
service as elected leaders or as associates, in government service or
in private endeavor. You have called each person, O gracious God, to
use the talents and gifts that are theirs in ways that promote peace in
our world and right attitudes and respect in our communities and
neighborhoods. May not the words of understanding and reconciliation,
of esteem and awareness, of freedom and liberty be the only words that
we speak with our lips, but may those good words find home in our
actions and in our hearts. May Your benediction, O God, be with those
in public service and with every person now and evermore. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. 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. Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. TRAFICANT 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.
____________________
NATIONAL TRIO DAY
(Mr. DICKEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues'
attention the celebration of National TRIO Day this past Saturday,
February 27. National TRIO Day was designated by concurrent resolution
on February 24, 1986, by the 99th Congress. It is celebrated on the
last Saturday of each February.
The TRIO program is a Federal program that works. Students volunteer
their time to learn about how to better educate themselves, to become
more gainfully employed. Employees of TRIO are there to help them and
encourage them. This is for families that have income of under $24,000.
We need more funds for this program so that we could fill more slots
across the country. There are more people who want to get in the
program than we have slots available.
One last thing, I would like to commend Lindsey Burkett of my
hometown of Pine Bluff. She is in the Upward Bound program at the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and is the 16-year-old daughter of
Nadine Burkett and the late Ray Burkett. She is a junior honor student
at Dollarway High School. I want to commend her for her work and TRIO
for it also.
____________________
READ ACROSS AMERICA DAY
(Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Read Across
America Day. The National Education Association, partnering with some
of the Nation's leading literacy education and community groups, is
calling for every child and every community in America to celebrate
reading today.
Reading is critically important as a platform for future learning. As
a father of a 4-year-old, I enjoy the positive emotional charge of our
reading experience as she soaks in every word and picture. We are
forming her pre-reading skills, and she will enter school prepared to
read.
Unfortunately, there are thousands of children in America who do not
have their parents reading to them. Responsible adults must fill this
gap for the sake of all of our children.
It is important that this Congress do all that it can to support and
further child development from the rural communities of the heartland
to the inner city of Baltimore, my home district. Today is a perfect
opportunity to help all of our children reach their full potential.
____________________
CUBAN TRIAL CONVENED AGAINST FOUR DISSIDENTS WITH NO CHARGES FILED
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, for 594 days, Cuban dissidents
Vladimiro Roca, Marta Beatriz Roque, Felix Bonne, and Rene Gomez
Manzano have been behind Fidel Castro's prison bars, with no charges
filed against them, for disseminating the document entitled, ``The
Homeland Belongs to All of Us,'' that dares to speak of
counterrevolutionary beliefs, such as freedom, democracy, and human
rights.
Yesterday, the regime began a kangaroo court trial behind closed
doors against these four brave freedom fighters who face even more jail
time. The trial of these four dissidents comes only days after the
regime imposed a new law that severely punishes those who promote anti-
revolutionary information.
Foreign diplomats and reporters who had expressed an interest in
being present at this show trial were summarily dismissed. Foreign
observers are not even allowed less than two blocks from the building
in which these mock trials are being held.
On the eve of this mockery of justice, dozens of Cuban independent
journalists and other dissidents, who risk their lives in an attempt to
inform the international community about the reality inside Cuba, were
arbitrarily arrested to prevent them from reporting on the proceedings.
[[Page 3247]]
Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the last tyrant of our hemisphere is
not about to change his totalitarian nature.
____________________
RUSSIA IS USING U.S. MONEY TO BUILD MISSILES
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Sam gives billions to Russia.
Russia builds missiles with our money. Russia then illegally dumps
steel in America, destroying jobs in industry. Uncle Sam gives Russia
more billions to stop the dumping.
Russia then takes this money and builds more missiles. This is no
joke. The Pentagon says Russia has developed a new missile they call
invincible because no system can stop it.
Beam me up here, ladies and gentlemen. Russian economy is so bad they
cannot buy toilet paper, but they are building missiles threatening our
freedom with our dollars. This is unbelievable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back all the bureaucrats who are sitting on
their brains here in Washington, D.C.
____________________
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SOLD IN RETAIL BOOKSTORES
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, people would be astounded to learn in America
that many public, commercial bookstores throughout the United States
are allowed to sell child pornography. I am not talking about adult
book stores.
I was shocked recently to learn that bookstores like Barnes and Noble
and Borders are selling books that show young girls and boys completely
nude in suggestive, erotic positions. These children are photographed
alone or shown erotically entangled with other young children. Further,
many of the captions for the pictures are sexually explicit.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. Child pornography feeds the sick
minds of child molesters who sexually prey on defenseless children who
live in our neighborhoods.
What has the Clinton administration done to protect these children?
They have turned a blind eye to some of the most offensive child
pornography there is. The administration has not enforced Federal
obscenity laws, after promising to make this a priority.
Please join me in calling on the administration to enforce our
existing Federal obscenity laws.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
(Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to pass along some
comments that my mother, Nancy Lampson, made to me after church just
recently. She, like millions of other senior citizens, is worried about
the future of Medicare and Social Security. She is afraid that it will
not be there for me and my brothers and sisters.
My mother knows that saving Social Security and Medicare is not just
good for retirement security for her. She knows it is also good for me,
her grandchildren, and her great grandchildren.
Why? Because putting aside 62 percent of the surplus for Social
Security and another 15 percent for Medicare will also reduce the
national debt and reduce the billions of dollars we waste each year on
interest payments. Winnowing down the national debt will be good for my
mother's great grandchildren.
Currently, the United States of America spends nearly as much on
interest payments as it does on national defense. If we wisely invest
the surplus in Social Security and Medicare today, we can reduce our
interest payments from 14 percent of the budget in 1999 to 2 percent in
2014.
Investing in Social Security and Medicare will not only reduce the
debt but also will lower interest rates, boost the economic growth, and
increase the financial security of working families. You do not have to
be a Harvard economist to know that this makes good sense to the
American people.
So, on behalf of my mother and the millions of Americans we
represent, I urge all of you to invest in the present and the future by
investing the budget surplus in Social Security and Medicare--it makes
good sense for America.
____________________
OUR STUDENTS DESERVE THE BEST EDUCATION
(Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher, I understand the
importance of a good education and the foundation it builds for our
youth. Our schools, both public and private, must establish curricula
designed to challenge students and to reward classroom successes.
American students, parents, and teachers must maintain the highest
level of quality in the field of education.
Achieving this goal is possible when educational guidelines are drawn
by parents and local school districts. It takes about 18,000 Federal
and State employees to manage 780 Federal education programs in 39
Federal agencies, boards, and commissions at a cost of nearly $100
billion annually.
It is thus not surprising that only approximately 70 cents of each
dollar makes it directly to the classroom. We must do better. We must
consolidate these programs and ensure that at least 95 percent of the
funds are directed to the classrooms. Our students deserve the best
possible education.
____________________
PUT OUR FINANCIAL HOUSE BACK IN ORDER
(Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on
the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves and the opportunity
that we have.
For 25 years, on a bipartisan basis, this government has mismanaged
its financial house, its financial matters. We have, after 25 years,
the opportunity to make fundamental progress. We have the opportunity
to restore the nearly $700 billion that has been, quote-unquote,
borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. We have the opportunity
to put our fiscal house back in order. If we do that, it is not only
good for the government fundamentally, it is good for the people of
this country.
By reducing our interest payments, by reducing the demand on the
credit market, we will do great things for the American people. The
average cost of a home mortgage can be reduced by $200 a month by
adhering to the financial responsibility that we have the opportunity
to pass this year in the Congress. I urge my colleagues, do it this
year. Fix the financial situation. We have the opportunity. Do not let
it lapse.
____________________
KEEP SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENT
(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge the other side
to a pledge, a pledge that has been notably absent from the proposals
of the other side of the aisle.
The Republican plan to protect and strengthen Social Security does
not raise taxes, and it does not reduce benefits. The President's plan,
however, leaves that option wide open. It would not take a rocket
scientist or a fortune teller to figure out what that means.
The key issues for the current and future retirees is, will my
retirement be secure and will Social Security remain a good deal?
Social Security, unless dramatically reformed, fails on the first
question.
As for the second, Social Security is a good deal for current
retirees; but,
[[Page 3248]]
very soon, it will be a terrible deal for future retirees.
The President's proposal does nothing about that. A worker's return
on investment will continue to head down if real structural reforms are
not made.
Let us keep Social Security solvent and a good deal for workers when
they retire.
____________________
{time} 1215
LION'S SHARE OF SURPLUS SHOULD PAY DOWN FEDERAL DEBT
(Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the
position advocated by the President in his budget proposal that we use
the lion's share of the surplus to pay down the Federal debt. The
proposal to use 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security and 15
percent for Medicare will have that effect.
We have a chance for the first time in decades to begin to bring the
debt held by the public, the money the Federal Government owes to other
people, down to a level that we all try to exercise in our homes and
businesses. This will allow the Federal Government for the first time
to more responsibly manage our debt and run the Nation's business.
Now, what impact does that have for those of us at home? In
Hillsborough County, my home, the average mortgage balance on a home is
about $115,000. With a 2 percent drop in interest rates, which we can
expect to occur as we begin to pay down the debt, a monthly mortgage
payment could drop from $844 to $689. That is $155 a month in the
pocket of a homeowner that he or she would not otherwise have.
That is better than most any tax cut this Chamber could pass. It
could be done by paying down the debt, using the lion's share of the
surplus to protect Social Security and Medicare. I urge my colleagues
to adopt that.
____________________
OPPOSE H.R. 45 TO PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY OF CITIZENS
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 45, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1999, opens the door to the dangerous transportation of high-level
nuclear waste and yet fails to address the concerns of the safety of
millions of Americans.
By mandating the construction of an interim storage facility in
Nevada, H.R. 45 would require the shipment of the most toxic substance
known to man to go through 43 States. Fifty million Americans within a
half mile of the transportation routes could be exposed to the deadly
hazards of 77,000 tons of nuclear waste moving through their
neighborhoods for the next 30 years.
H.R. 45 does nothing to address the weakness in the design of the
waste caskets. It does nothing to fund the training of emergency
personnel who would be required to respond to any accidents. H.R. 45 is
the ``speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil'' effort by the nuclear
power industry to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans.
We must protect our constituents, their health and their safety and
oppose H.R. 45.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY
(Mrs. Napolitano asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about the need to
dedicate the 62 percent of the surplus over the next 15 years to saving
Social Security and then, of course, the 15 percent to saving Medicare,
which cannot be understated.
However, in addition to that, we need to recognize that simply
securing the solvency of Social Security and Medicare is not enough. We
also need to address the structure and quality of Social Security and
Medicare programs.
We need to discuss covering prescription drugs, a difficult issue
because of the cost involved, yet vital for so many seniors in America.
We need to address the earnings test so that seniors who work to
supplement their pensions are not penalized by cuts in their Social
Security benefits.
We also need to talk about improving service so that individuals do
not get lost in a bureaucratic cobweb that leaves them frustrated and
without the benefits they deserve.
We have already agreed to dedicate the 62 percent of the surplus for
Social Security in order to fully protect America's retirement
security, but I urge my colleagues on the other side to take the next
step and join us in resolving the entire Medicare issue.
____________________
AMERICA'S OIL INDUSTRY ON VERGE OF COLLAPSE
(Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this picture? Today in
America there is a total collapse, a crisis of survival for the oil
industry. The small independent producers are going bankrupt every day
bringing pain and hurt in oil patch.
What is wrong with this picture? American family farms are being
destroyed. The families are having to leave because of low pricing and
farm bankruptcies. Wheat just dropped to $2.20 a bushel.
What is wrong with this picture? Today we are bombing Iraq but, at
the same time, they are increasing by over 2 million barrels a day
their oil sales which is helping destroy our domestic oil industry. Our
small independent producers are dying in this country. They have also
threatened and said they will not buy America's wheat with those funds
from selling oil, again contributing to the collapse of the American
farm.
I agree with my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) when he says,
``Beam me up, Mr. President.'' What is wrong with this picture is Iraq
is benefitting and our American farmers and independent producers are
dying under the policy.
____________________
DO NOT FORGET ABOUT PAYING DOWN NATIONAL DEBT
(Mr. SNYDER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, recently, I was in White County, Arkansas, a
county that recently had some very devastating tornadoes, and was
having my Saturday morning office hours in a store; and one of my
constituents came through and what he wanted to talk about was our
national debt. He said to me that, while we are all talking about the
surplus, he urged me to please not to forget paying down the national
debt. He said, we are talking too much about surpluses, but we are
forgetting the debt.
I think that is good advice from my constituent from Arkansas. If we
use the surplus and pay down the debt, we will protect Social Security,
we will protect Medicare, we will protect working families, and we will
protect all generations that want to benefit from Social Security and
Medicare in the future.
This is good common sense, Mr. Speaker, from White County, Arkansas;
and I recommend this Congress heed my constituent's advice.
____________________
H.J. RES. 32, SOCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEE INITIATIVE
(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today the House will be
considering H.J. Res. 32, the Social Security Guarantee Initiative. I
recently introduced this resolution that expresses Congress' commitment
to protecting Social Security benefits for all current
[[Page 3249]]
and future retirees. This bipartisan resolution sends an important
message that sets the stage for what will soon be an historic debate on
how best to reform our Nation's Social Security System.
I recently completed 21 town hall meetings during our congressional
recess on a listening tour throughout Wisconsin's First Congressional
District. At every stop a great number of people I represent expressed
their grave concerns over any changes that would be made to the Social
Security System. Quite frankly, many of them felt that Washington could
not be trusted to fix their problem. We have to prove them wrong.
This resolution sends a very clear signal to our constituents that
any reforms made by Congress will not result in a loss of benefits or
place any increased costs upon them. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that
we make this bipartisan commitment before we move forward on any Social
Security reform proposals so that current and soon-to-be retirees will
not have their benefits cut.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
____________________
REDUCING THE DEBT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO
(Mr. HILL of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, $17 billion is just a drop in the
bucket here in Washington, but back in Indiana it is serious money.
Seventeen billion dollars is enough to operate all eight Indiana
university campuses for 10 years. Seventeen billion dollars almost
equals the entire 2-year budget of the State of Indiana.
The government projects that this year we will spend $17 billion less
on interest payments than we did last year. When we reduce the
government's debt, we are given billions of dollars back to the private
sector to invest, create jobs and strengthen our economy. By reducing
the debt, we are also improving our ability to honor the promises we
have made to our seniors through the Social Security and Medicare
programs.
Other arguments aside, reducing the debt we pass on to our children
is just the right thing to do. Not only do we owe it to our American
seniors to reduce the debt, but we owe it to future generations as
well.
____________________
CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATION SHOULD FOLLOW ICELAND'S LEAD
(Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the country of Iceland
recently made the news with two separate announcements, one instructive
and the other intriguing.
First, Iceland announced it will not sign, it will not sign, the
U.N.'s questionable Kyoto climate treaty because it would destroy its
economy and bring unnecessary suffering to its citizens.
Secondly, on February 17th, an Icelandic consortium signed an
agreement for a joint venture to investigate the potential of
transforming Iceland into the world's first hydrogen-based economy.
One of the first results could be a hydrogen fuel cell-powered bus
service. This would be an interesting development to monitor because of
the environmental and energy security implications. Hydrogen fuel cells
create their own electrical energy, with clean water as a by-product.
Some estimate that vehicle efficiency can be improved by 50 percent,
with no exhaust emissions.
Mr. Speaker, it may be wise for Congress and this administration to
follow Iceland's lead on both of these counts.
____________________
CONGRESS SHOULD TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE NATION'S FISCAL HOUSE
IN ORDER
(Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, economists and the Congressional
Budget Office agree: We have a budget surplus starting in the year
2001, which will grow to $164 billion by the end of the year 2009.
Let me tell my colleagues when I talk to people in Oregon what they
say about the budget. First of all, Oregonians believe we need to keep
our budget balanced, we need to pay off the huge national debt, and we
need to make sure our future generations are not left holding the bag
for our generation's party.
Leaving behind a debt that we did not have the moral fortitude to pay
off is simply wrong. Reducing the national debt now, economists
predict, will result in a further decline in interest rates. Now, let
me tell my colleagues, lower interest rates are good for the homeowner,
they are good for the businessperson, they are good for the farmer, and
they are good for the student in the classroom.
Mr. Speaker, last year we spent, listen to this number, $243 billion,
billion, of Federal taxpayers' money on the interest. That is four
times what we spent on education. Four times. As a member of the House
Committee on the Budget, I want to take this opportunity to get our
fiscal house in order.
____________________
HAITI'S FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS SHOULD HELP REVIVE HAITI'S FAILED
DEMOCRACY
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today Haiti is a very grim place. The economy
is in shambles, crime is prevalent, and the parliament is
dysfunctional. There has been no progress scheduling necessary
elections, despite President Preval's recent assurances he would.
Another indication of how bad the situation has become in Haiti is
the Clinton administration's refusal to certify Haiti as meeting its
obligation in the war on drugs, even though U.S. taxpayers have spent
millions of dollars in the past few years trying to build a competent
police force in Haiti.
Now we learn of the politically motivated murder, the brutal
assassination of one of Haiti's nine remaining Senators on Monday. The
predilection for solving Haiti's problems through violence continues as
does the slide towards authoritarianism. Later this week I will join
several of my colleagues in introducing a bipartisan resolution calling
on the Organization of American States to intervene.
The crown jewel of Clinton's foreign policy is tragically tarnished.
It is time we stopped adding more to this bad debt.
____________________
PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an historic opportunity.
Due to a robust economy, the Federal Government has a surplus for the
first time in three decades. We should seize this moment to do what is
fair, right and fiscally responsible: Protect Social Security and
Medicare.
Social Security and Medicare are the twin pillars of retirement
security. Two-thirds of our seniors rely on Social Security for over
half of their income. Medicare ensures that 99 percent of our seniors
have the health coverage that they need. Combined, these two programs
allow our parents to live with dignity, independence and peace of mind.
Now that we have the opportunity, we should use the vast majority of
this surplus, a full 77 percent, to strengthen Social Security and
Medicare for the long-term security of our parents, ourselves and our
children.
Protecting Social Security and Medicare must come before a Republican
tax plan, which would spend the surplus on a one-time, feel-good tax
break that benefits mostly the wealthy. It is irresponsible and it is
risky. Let us not
[[Page 3250]]
jeopardize the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare for the
short-term goal of an overzealous tax break.
Let us do what is right, let us protect Social Security and Medicare.
____________________
PAYING DOWN NATIONAL DEBT ENSURES PRESERVATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. In 1992, Mr. Speaker, when President
Clinton took office, we were looking at budget deficits that were
approaching almost $300 billion. Well, thanks to the good work of
Congress and the good work of the administration, we are no longer
talking about budget deficits, but we are, in fact, talking about
budget surpluses.
It is important for us to continue down the path of fiscal
responsibility, and that requires this Congress to support the efforts
of the administration and others who are committed to using the
significant majority of the budget surpluses that we are going to see
in the next 10 years to pay down the national debt and, in doing so,
ensuring that we can preserve Social Security and Medicare.
That makes good sense for our families and makes good sense for our
businesses. Because if we pay down the national debt, which is costing
us $243 billion a year in interest, we will be ensured that we can see
a reduction in interest rates of over 2 percent. A reduction of 2
percent in interest rates means about $155 to people who have a home
mortgage of $115,000.
{time} 1230
It means to farmers of this country, who have an operating loan of
$250,000, a $5,000 savings. Let us take the path of fiscal
responsibility. Let us pay down the debt.
____________________
ANNUAL REPORT OF FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, FISCAL YEAR 1997--
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Stearns) 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 Government Reform:
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 701 of the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-454; 5 U.S.C. 7104(e)), I am pleased to transmit
the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
for Fiscal Year 1997.
The report includes information on the cases heard and decisions
rendered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the General Counsel
of the Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, March 2, 1999.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as a member of the Committee on Science:
House of Representatives,
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 23, 1999.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, on Feb. 12, 1999, I was appointed by the
House Democratic Caucus to serve on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. According to Rule 19 E of the
Rules of the Democratic Caucus, ``no Democratic Member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence may serve on more
than one standing committee during the Member's term of
service on the select committee.''
Rule 19 E also states that ``Members shall be entitled to
take leaves of absence from service on any committee (or
subcommittee thereof) during the period they serve on the
select committee and seniority rights on such committee (and
on each subcommittee) to which they were assigned at the time
shall be fully protected as if they had continued to serve
during the period of leave of absence.''
Accordingly, I am requesting a leave of absence from the
House Committee on Science for the 106th Congress, with the
understanding that my seniority rights on the Committee will
be fully protected in accordance with Rule 19 E of the
Democratic Caucus. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Tim Roemer,
Member of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to the provisions of
clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair announces that he will postpone further
proceedings today on each motion to suspend the rules on which a
recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote is
objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Such rollcall votes, if postponed, will be taken after debate has
concluded on all motions to suspend the rules.
____________________
PERMITTING CERTAIN YOUTH TO PERFORM CERTAIN WORK WITH WOOD PRODUCTS
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 221) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit
certain youth to perform certain work with wood products, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 221
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.
Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration
and enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it
shall not be considered oppressive child labor for an
individual who--
``(i) is at least 14 but under the age of 18, and
``(ii) is a member of a religious sect or division thereof
whose established teachings do not permit formal education
beyond the eighth grade,
to be employed inside or outside places of business where
machinery is used to process wood products.
``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph
(A) shall be permitted--
``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative
of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the
same religious sect or division as the individual;
``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the
operation of power-driven woodworking machines;
``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles
or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier
appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or
flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from
machinery in operation; and
``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal
protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels
of noise and saw dust.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 221, which is a
bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Pitts) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). The bill will
address a unique problem resulting from the application of the child
labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to individuals in the
Amish community.
We are considering a substitute amendment which makes one technical
change for the purpose of renumbering the paragraphs in the bill.
My colleagues will remember that the House passed a similar bill,
exactly the same, as a matter of fact, last year by voice vote under
suspension of the rules. The Senate did not consider the bill prior to
the close of the last Congress, and so we are taking early action on
the bill in order to allow ample time for the Senate to act.
[[Page 3251]]
Children in the Amish community complete their formal classroom
education at age 14 or 15. In fact, the Amish faith teaches that their
children's formal classroom education should end after the eighth
grade, after which they, quote, learn by doing, while working under the
supervision of their parents or another community member.
Amish youth have traditionally worked in agriculture on their family
farms. However, economic pressures in recent years, including the
rising cost of land, have forced more and more Amish families to enter
other occupations. Many have gone into operating sawmills and other
types of woodworking. So, increasingly, the opportunities for Amish
young people to ``learn by doing'' are in these types of workplaces.
The problem is that the Department of Labor's regulations prohibit
14- and 15-year-olds from working in any sawmill or woodworking shop
and severely limit the work of 16- or 17-year-olds in these workplaces.
The Department has undertaken a number of enforcement actions against
Amish employers in recent years. As a result, Amish youth no longer
have the opportunity to learn skills and work habits through the
community's traditional means.
We have no reason to believe that Amish young people will be placed
at risk or allowed to engage in unsafe activities in the workplace. As
some of my colleagues have said, who would care more about the well-
being of Amish children than their parents? The fact is that, as the
Amish struggle to preserve their way of life, the Department of Labor's
actions are, in effect, undermining the Amish culture.
H.R. 221 is a narrow bill that addresses this specific problem. It
would allow individuals who are at least 14 years old to work in
sawmills and woodworking shops, so long as they do so under the
supervision of an adult relative or member of the same faith. The young
person would not be permitted, under any circumstances, to operate or
assist in the operation of any power-driven woodworking machines.
The young person must be protected from wood particles or other
flying debris by a barrier or by maintaining an appropriate physical
distance from machinery in operation. In addition, the young person
must be protected from excessive levels of noise and sawdust by the use
of personal protective equipment.
I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Pitts), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Martinez) for their work on this issue. This legislation comes only
after Members of Congress made repeated effort to work out an
administrative solution with the Department. Unfortunately, the
Department has been unwilling or unable to alleviate the conflict
between the current regulation and the Amish community's way of life.
That is why we are now addressing the problem through legislation.
The bill will allow the Amish to continue in their traditional way of
training their children in a craft or occupation while ensuring the
safety of those who are employed in woodworking occupations. I would
certainly urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan legislation.
I would also indicate that I believe it is our responsibility to
legislate. It is the responsibility of the Court to determine whether
it meets Amish law or American law, not the Congress of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 221. This bill permits 14-
year-old children to work in sawmills, one of the most dangerous
worksites in the country. The occupational fatality rate in the lumber
and wood products industry is five times the national average. The
fatality rate exceeds that of the construction, of the transportation
and of the warehouse industry.
Inexperience, small size and lack of maturity can all act to increase
the risk of accidents for 14-year-old children employed in sawmills.
I oppose this bill because it poses undue jeopardy to the health and
safety of children too young to legally smoke, too young to legally
consume alcohol products, too young to defend this country in the
military.
Mr. Speaker, there are good, sound, logical reasons why 14-year-olds
are prohibited from engaging in these activities, and the same reasons
exist for keeping them out of sawmills.
I also oppose this legislation because it undermines job
opportunities for adults by encouraging the replacement of older
workers with teenagers who will work for less pay. Mr. Speaker,
replacing fathers with their sons was a pervasive and devastating
pastime for the robber barons of American industry at the beginning of
the 20th century. Why are we contemplating renewing this horrendous
policy at the beginning of the 21st century?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it violates the
establishment clause of the Constitution's first amendment, which
forbids preferences to one religion over another. This bill, if
enacted, will sanction a discriminatory provision of law for the Amish
members against other religions that do not enjoy this preference. I am
sympathetic to the desire to accommodate the Amish lifestyle but am
opposed to accommodating that lifestyle in a manner that places other
religious groups and business interests at a disadvantage.
Encouraging the displacement of adult workers by teenagers in this
hazardous worksite is bad safety policy, is bad health policy, is bad
employment policy and, most of all, Mr. Speaker, it is bad
constitutional policy. I oppose the bill because it is an assault on
the very principle enacted years ago to prevent the exploitation of
child labor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived,
unnecessary bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the coauthor of the legislation.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today we are addressing an issue important to
the Amish community who reside in over 20 States in this country, and I
especially want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez)
and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), and the other Members who have helped us craft this
bipartisan bill.
People around the world know of the Old Order Amish as people who
till their land and direct their lives with faith, simplicity and
discipline.
Traditionally, Amish communities are centered around the family farm,
which requires input from the whole family. While caring for crops and
animals, Amish parents show their children how to make a living without
exposure to outside influences that contradict their beliefs. However,
due to the high growth rate, the soaring price of farmland, many Amish
have been forced to look for alternatives to farming. Now Amish can be
found in small businesses making raw lumber, clocks, wagons, cabinetry
and quilts.
Therefore, as they did on the family farm and still do, and I might
say that in farm work the children are totally exempt from child labor
laws, one can find a 10-year-old boy driving a team of mules. I would
like to see the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) try that. The Amish
now wish to have their youth work with them in these vocational
settings.
Typically, the youth will learn a trade after the completion of Amish
school, or the eighth grade, and be self-sufficient by age 18. The
Amish view this work as part of their schooling, since they often
accompany a parent to the workplace, very similar to an apprenticeship,
and they call this learning by doing.
Unfortunately, these small Amish-owned businesses have received
costly fines from the Department of Labor for having their young adults
work alongside their fathers and uncles, even in family businesses.
Mr. Speaker, recently a businessman, an Amish businessman in my
congressional district, was fined $10,000 for
[[Page 3252]]
having his own child in the front office of his business. The teenager,
15 years old, was simply learning to use the cash register alongside
her father. She was far from harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, these actions by the Department of Labor have severely
threatened the lifestyle and the religion of this respected and humble
community. The Amish expect diligence, responsibility and respect from
their youth. They do not contribute to the social ills of our society,
and they do not accept any assistance from government programs.
Our government should not interfere with this humble community.
Several of my colleagues, along with our Amish constituents, met with
the Department of Labor several times last year for a solution.
Unfortunately, we received nothing but negative responses from Labor.
The Amish have a very unique situation, and they do not benefit from
shop or vo-tech like the youth of our schools.
My son, at age 14, made furniture on a band saw in a shop class with
15 other students around. We have a responsibility to evaluate the
Amish in light of these things, and that is why the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez) and I and others have introduced this
legislation, narrowly crafted, and we urge support.
{time} 1245
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise to oppose the bill, particularly on suspension. I offered
an amendment in committee to try to make this bill a little better by
having a reporting requirement, that it would be reported the number of
injuries that might take place in this type of workshop with this
reduced age limit so we could determine what the effect of this bill
might be. Now, that amendment was defeated on a pretty well party line
vote in the committee. We are precluded from offering, I think, and
even discussing that amendment here on the floor under this suspension
of rules. So I feel that the process is wrong.
I have serious problems about the bill, but we cannot even discuss
the amendment that was defeated by a party line vote in committee. I
urge defeat of the bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in
the House today and support this legislation. I want to commend the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Martinez), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and all of those who
were a part of bringing this issue together.
We should not be here today. The Department of Labor and Industry
should not be in this issue. There was not a history of danger out
there, not a history of people being harmed. A lot of the criticism, or
all of it has been about safety. This legislation includes supervision
by an adult relative or an adult of the same religious sect; the
placement of protective barriers. We just heard that the lumber
industry is the most dangerous. Yes, it is. The most dangerous part is
the falling of trees. They are not going to be doing that. The next
most dangerous part is running saws and planers and equipment. They are
not going to be doing that. They are going to be doing odd jobs in the
mill, stacking lumber, cleaning up, office work, running errands,
helping out, learning a trade.
Young people in the Amish community when they are finished with
school at 14, they learn a trade and when they work around the edges of
a mill, when they work around the edges of an operation, they learn
that business over a period of time. We are not putting them in harm's
way. In my view, this is legislation that is needed to be done to
preserve the Amish life. As someone just mentioned, they are not a part
of the difficulties in our society. They are a quiet people who teach
their youth to work and carry on whatever the tradition of that family
was. This is a very sensible, well-thought-out solution that will allow
this community to preserve its way of life.
I urge the Members of this Congress to tell the Department of Labor
and Industry to go on and deal with real problems and leave our Amish
to raise their children as they have in the past with a very good
record.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez).
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, last September this body considered a
piece of legislation identical to this bill before us today. Then as
now, I support the bill very much. You might ask why someone from an
urban area like myself would support a bill such as this, because there
are no Amish in Los Angeles County. Well, I do not care where you live
in this country, when it comes to keeping our young people engaged
productively and out of trouble, the challenges are the same no matter
where you are. And although the answer is different in different parts
of the country, the goal is the same, to keep those kids out of
trouble, keep them working, keep them interested in something that will
make a good life for themselves.
I supported that bill last year, because I understand the Amish way
and where they face problems that are different than those that we face
in Los Angeles, I believe that for their youth, they have the
appropriate answer. And I supported the bill because it offers a real
solution to a real problem for the Amish and because it made good sense
to me.
As I mentioned during the debate last September, Amish children
finish their education at 14 years of age. Historically Amish boys have
joined their fathers in the fields of the family farm. However, due to
technological advances, the rising price of real estate, the Amish have
found it difficult to compete and many have had to abandon their farms
for other types of occupations. Today nearly 50 percent of the Amish
men work in nonfarm occupations, primarily in the lumber industry.
However, when the Amish take their young men to work with them in the
sawmills, they are in violation of child labor law.
Therefore, last Congress the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts)
introduced a bill to amend the child labor laws to permit the Amish to
take their young men to the sawmill with them. In response to this
concern about exposing young men to hazards that has been mentioned
here by a couple of Members, we saw that, too. We wondered if we were
not doing the same. But we worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts) to come up with a solution to that problem. I worked with
him to add a number of safety provisions such as requiring earplugs,
face masks, adult supervision, et cetera. We must have done a good job
because it passed out of committee by a voice vote and passed on the
floor by a voice vote. Because the Senate ran out of time is the only
reason we are here considering this noncontroversial legislation again.
This bill before us is identical to the bill that was passed by the
House in the last Congress. It addresses the same problems and contains
the same safety provisions and still makes good sense. Therefore,
although you may not have a large number of Amish in your district, I
urge you to support this bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and ask unanimous consent that he
be permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding me this time and I rise in support of this legislation. I want
to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for exercising common sense and
bipartisanship in
[[Page 3253]]
crafting this legislation. It is extremely important that we strike a
delicate balance between honoring the differences in our different
religions in this country, our different traditions in this country and
having a safe and healthy workplace. I believe this legislation, in a
commonsense and bipartisan manner, strikes this principled compromise
between these two interests, of respecting the Amish for their cultural
and religious differences and on insisting on a safe and healthy work
environment.
The Amish community, as has been stated on the House floor here this
afternoon, has a little bit different education system than some of the
rest of us, and we should respect and honor those differences. They
have a formal education for their young men and young women up until
about the eighth grade, and then after the eighth grade many of their
children, young minors, are enrolled in informal vocation classes
learning directly under the supervision of parents and teachers.
In Indiana, let me give my colleagues an example, this is primarily
done in small cabinet-making shops where people have worked with the
Amish community for decades and where they are small, family-owned
businesses. This is not an instance where young people are out in
harm's way from falling trees or with big sawmills. They are in working
environments in small business communities.
We have four major protections outlined in this bill that I will not
go into articulating but I will again urge this body to support this
bipartisan, commonsense bill.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I get nervous when I find myself on the opposite end of a labor
issue from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), but in this instance I come from a
different perspective. I grew up in a small town called Summit Mills in
southwestern Pennsylvania. That town is mostly Amish. And so as I grew
up in that community as a young man, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 years of age, I
worked in Amish farms, I worked in Amish sawmills, I worked and learned
carpentry with my friends the Amish. I worked in their maple sugar
camps. I understand their way of life because I lived it with them. I
know that there is no danger. I also know that if they do not employ
their children, it does not mean that they are going to employ someone
else, it means they are going to work that much longer and that much
harder themselves or they are not going to make that much more money.
They are going to in fact have to live with less.
In my district now, the 4th District of Pennsylvania, in Lawrence
County, the Amish live there, they are quiet people, they do not drive
cars, they do not listen to radio or watch TV. But what they do is when
their children are finished with school at the eighth grade, they teach
their children how to make a living. They in essence are the trade
school themselves. If the family business is carpentry, if it is a
sawmill, if it is a maple sugar camp in the spring, if it is farming,
they teach their children to do this. If the children have other
interests, they may go off and work with an uncle or someone else on
their farm.
This bill, H.R. 221, of which I am an original cosponsor, does
specify that the young Amish people would not be permitted to operate
power-driven woodworking machinery. Regarding the workplace safety of
this bill, the bill requires a barrier or some other means of
protection to be used to protect these teenagers from flying wood
particles.
I have a very strong voting record to maintain our labor laws. This
bill simply amends the Fair Labor Standards Act and would allow these
young people ages 14 to 18 who are members of this religious sect to
work with their parents, to work with adults, those who are like the
Amish to be able to be employed in a family business where wood is
processed with machinery.
I ask my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 221.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I
rise today in support of this bill. I believe this is a commonsense
measure allowing the Amish to preserve their culture as well as the
control of the upbringing of their children while maintaining important
child labor enforcement policies.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts)
and especially the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for the
leadership that they have shown in crafting what I think is a very
commonsense measure. To this day the Amish continue to make great
contributions to our Nation's heritage across the country and as well
in my congressional district in western Wisconsin. Traditionally Amish
children's formal education ends at a very early age. They continue to
learn by doing. Their youth attend school until the age of 14, after
which they work with an adult member of the community to gain hands-on
experience, oftentimes in small, family-owned woodworking shops. In the
past the practice has come into conflict with certain child labor
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Yes, woodworking machines can be very dangerous, especially for young
children, but thanks to my colleagues I think there have been some
commonsense safeguards built into this legislation that we can all
support. First, that teenagers must be supervised by an adult who is a
member of the same sect or division; second, the teenagers are not
allowed to operate or even assist in the operation of power-driven
woodworking machines; and, finally, they must be protected by an
appropriate barrier to the potential hazard of flying debris and wood
particles.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have to do all that we can to preserve our
Nation's distinct and diverse heritage without sacrificing personal
safety and well-being, especially when it comes to the safety of our
children. I believe this bill is a commonsense step in that direction.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues today to support what I feel is an
appropriate bill with the appropriate safeguards.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I, too, want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling),
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) as well as our bipartisan help from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) and others on the other side of the aisle
who have helped to finally bring this remedy hopefully to closure this
year.
For the record, I want to say I am not just a bystander in this. Not
only do I represent the 3rd, 7th and 10th largest old order communities
in the country, and by old order I mean that they do not have tops on
their buggies and they are not allowed to marry the Amish in many of
these other gentlemen's districts who have tops on their buggies and
are much, therefore, more liberal Congressmen and members. Furthermore,
this has nothing to do with voting. Out of the 20,000 Amish in my
district, I think approximately 150 voted. Three in my hometown of
Grabill went out to vote and then got kicked out of church for going
out because they wanted to vote for me and they had to work that
through in their church. My great grandfather in 1846 was one of the
first Amish settlers in Allen County. He left the Amish faith around
the turn of the century, but I still have many cousins and many, many
friends in the Amish community and I grew up in a small town surrounded
by an old order Amish community and went to school with many of them.
So I have been very involved with this issue even though the original
[[Page 3254]]
points of contention with the Department of Labor came up in
Pennsylvania and most of the Amish who were at the meetings that we had
with the Department of Labor were from Pennsylvania, a few from Holmes
County, Ohio, and very few from Indiana and mostly up from the district
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) because the Amish in my
district do not take part in any governmental activities and therefore
are completely vulnerable and helpless when the government comes in and
tries to alter their life-style.
For 18 months we have negotiated with the Department of Labor. We
have negotiated through several rounds through our committee.
{time} 1300
I am frustrated how long this has taken. This is a tad ridiculous,
quite frankly. At the same time, I am glad we are to this point, and I
am glad we are finally making progress.
We have heard particulars in this bill, that in fact this is an
endangerment. It is not a question of whether the Amish are old enough
to smoke or old enough to do many things, because they are certainly
old enough to sweep a floor. This is not a matter of working the
woodworking equipment. It is a matter of doing the tangential jobs. We,
as my colleagues have heard, put restrictions that limit that
endangerment.
Furthermore, as we see the pressures in our communities in Indiana,
in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, where there are Amish
communities, we have a fundamental question we have to answer in this
country: Can you practice religious freedom within the confines of what
we expect in public health and safety? As they cannot divide their
farms any further, they have turned to other crafts like woodworking,
and if they cannot practice woodworking, and if they cannot practice
their religious faith, they will leave our country or have to change
their religion, and that is not what America was based on.
I would argue that many of the arguments that have been put forth
through the past few years are absurd. I have seen in print that there
could be forklifts running over these kids. They do not have forklifts
in Amish factories because they do not have electricity. I just heard a
reference to robber barons. As my colleagues know, the Amish parents
are not robber barons, and we have to be very careful about confusing
past labor disputes with one of the most innocent, helpless and
vulnerable segments of our society. I do not understand how anybody
could oppose these poor, low-income people, who are at the mercy of
everybody else, having their ability to work with their children in
their factories.
So, in their woodworking, whether it is furniture or whether it is
pallets or whatever they do, so that they can continue their way of
life, they are not the people with the gang problems, they are not the
people with drug problems, they are not the people with the social
problems we see elsewhere. So why would we come barreling into their
community and try to change their lifestyle when they should be a model
for the rest of us, not somebody who we try to destroy their culture?
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of this important
legislation, I urge my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support H.R. 221. The bill amends the Fair Labor & Standards Act to
allow youths between the ages of 14-18, who are members of a religious
sect or division, to work in businesses where machinery is used to
process wood products.
This legislation is of great importance to me since my district has
the greatest population of Amish residents in Illinois. Instead of
continuing formal education past the 8th grade, Amish children
typically go to work with their parents or another adult leaning a
trade, usually woodworking or farming. This is not an example of
``sweatshops'' where children are forced to work against their will--
this is a tradition that the Amish community has held near and dear to
their hearts.
Current FLSA language allows the Department of Labor to levy fines up
to $20,000 on several Amish businesses, and to confiscate their
equipment. This is not only a financial hardship that small business
must absorb, but an imposition on secular values. This is not the role
of government.
This legislation allows Amish children to begin their life's work
under the proper supervision of an adult and requires the youth to be
properly protected in the various work areas. We should not penalize a
religious community and their citizens from pursuing life-long
traditions.
Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 221.
This bill permits children to work in one of the most hazardous
industries in the country. Fourteen-year-old children do not possess
the full autonomy of choice and may not possess the full capacity for
choice possessed by adults. They should not be allowed to place
themselves or be placed by others in occupational situations that may
be life threatening. The occupational fatality rate in the Wood
Products Industry is five times higher than the national average. One
of the witnesses who testified on behalf of this legislation told of
how he lost several fingers when during a moment of inattention, he
carelessly set his hand on a conveyor belt and it ran his hand into a
saw. This accident happened to an adult with years of experience in the
wood processing industry. Inexperience and lack of maturity serve to
make the potential risks faces by minors even greater than they are by
minors even greater than they are for adults. It is unreasonable to
expect a fourteen year-old to maintain the kind of continuous safety
concern we expect for adults. In this industry, a moment of inattention
can be fatal. Secretary Herman in a letter to Chairman Goodling
opposing this legislation said, ``While we are sensitive to the
cultural and religious traditions of the Amish and similar American
communities, we believe the benefits of accommodating those traditions
must be carefully balanced against the nation's longstanding concern
for the safety and welfare of children.'' Secretary Herman provides the
focus which should guide this Congress in its deliberations concerning
child-labor issues. We should always place the protection of our
children's health and safety first.
To employ children in an industry where the occupational fatality and
injury rates are five times the national average is irresponsible. If
enacted, H.R. 221 will inevitably result in the serious injury or death
of a minor. Attached for the Record are letters from the Department of
Labor and the Department of Justice.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the passage of H.R.
221, legislation which will permit a unique culture to continue
practicing traditions vital to its way of life. This bill changes
current law so that Amish teenagers may continue work in businesses
where machinery is used to process wood products.
Child labor provisions in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
prevent Amish young people from learning the practical skills they need
to successfully contribute to their community. The U.S. Department of
Labor has followed a rigorous enforcement policy in the arena of child
labor. The Department of Labor has levied fines of up to $20,000 on
several Amish businesses. These actions are not just intrusive, they
are insulting to a proud culture which has long prospered within the
boundaries of our laws.
While enforcement of child labor laws is laudable and necessary, it
is detrimental to the Amish people. In their culture, Amish youth
finish organized schooling at the age of 14, when they go to work with
their parents or other adults in their community to learn a trade. Due
to the nature of their lifestyle, these occupations are primarily in
agriculture and woodworking, work which requires long periods of
apprenticeship to learn the proper and safe use of the required
machinery.
H.R. 221 recognizes this fact by providing specific requirements for
the sake of safety-requirements that the Amish have implemented long
before the Fair Labor Standards Act came into effect. Individuals
working in these trades must be between the ages of 14 and 18, and be a
member of a religious sect or division which mandates no formal
education beyond the eighth grade. Other provisions include the proper
wear of protective gear, as well as proper adult supervision at all
times.
The Amish are a people who take great pride in their secular values,
and rightfully take great umbrage to any attempts to influence their
lifestyle. I am thankful that we in the Congress can take pride in the
fact that today we did the right thing, and corrected an error in
bureaucracy which threatened the culture of a group of people.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 221, as amended.
[[Page 3255]]
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 221, the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
____________________
DISASTER MITIGATION COORDINATION ACT OF 1999
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 818) to amend the Small Business Act to authorize a pilot
program for the implementation of disaster mitigation measures by small
businesses.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 818
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 ``Disaster Mitigation
Coordination Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 7(b)(1) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) during fiscal years 2000 through 2004, to establish a
disaster mitigation program to make such loans (either
directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending
institutions through agreements to participate on an
immediate or deferred (guaranteed) basis) as the
Administrator may determine to be necessary or appropriate to
enable small business concerns to implement mitigation
measures pursuant to a formal disaster mitigation program
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
except that no loan or guarantee may be extended to a small
business concern under this subparagraph unless the
Administration finds the concern is otherwise unable to
obtain credit for the purposes described in this
subparagraph.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 20 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(f) Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program.--The following
program levels are authorized for loans under section
7(b)(1)(C):
``(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
``(3) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
``(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
``(5) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
(c) Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--On January 31, 2003, the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration shall submit to the
Committees on Small Business of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report on the effectiveness of the pilot
program authorized by section 7(b)(1)(C) of the Small
Business Act, as added by subsection (a) of this section.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include--
(1) information relating to--
(A) the areas served under the pilot program;
(B) the number and dollar value of loans made under the
pilot program; and
(C) the estimated savings to the Federal Government
resulting from the pilot program; and
(2) such other information as the Administrator determines
to be appropriate for evaluating the pilot program.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my colleague, the ranking member on
the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez), for her assistance in moving this bill and also my
colleague from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his assistance in handling
it.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 818, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999, is a
common-sense approach to applying the principle of preventive care in
coping with natural disasters. H.R. 818 is substantially identical to a
measure reintroduced by Senator Cleland, the measure which actually
passed the Senate last year. It is part of the administration's budget
request, and it has substantial bipartisan support.
Since 1953, the Small Business Administration has administered the
Disaster Loan Program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business
Act. This program provides loans to help small businesses rebuild after
natural disasters.
In past years, the loan program has spent billions of dollars helping
small businesses recover from natural disasters. For example, in fiscal
year 1998, the SBA lent $728 million for 30,154 disaster loans. In
1997, it lent $1.1 billion for 49,515 disaster loans. In 1994, the
SBA's highest demand came when it loaned over $4.1 billion for damage
done due to the Northridge Earthquake in California. It was important,
Mr. Speaker, that we do this to help people recover from the damage
inflicted by natural disasters.
We should also recognize that the cost of disaster assistance has
risen over the past several years due to increases in construction and
other costs, and it is clear that efforts must be made to help prevent
this kind of damage in the first place, both to prevent the human
injury and toll and also to hold down costs to the taxpayers.
Implementing the program to help small businesses use techniques to
lessen damages caused by natural disasters offers the potential to save
much anguish for many people across the United States and also to save
millions of dollars in the future.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency currently manages Project
Impact which works in conjunction with communities and businesses on
such mitigation policies and techniques. Passage of H.R. 818 will
complement and further these efforts at mitigation by offering small
businesses low-interest loans for disaster mitigation through the Small
Business Administration.
H.R. 818 authorizes the SBA to establish a pilot program to make
loans to small businesses for purposes of mitigating the effects of
natural disasters. These loans will be made in support of the
mitigation program established at the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. The mitigation techniques are varied. They include a wide range
of activities, including building improvements, relocation and the
like.
H.R. 818 will authorize SBA to lend up to $15 million each year
through fiscal year 2004 in support of the Disaster Mitigation Pilot
Program. These funds will come from existing section 7(b) disaster loan
appropriations and will be subject to appropriations available for that
program, so the bill does not authorize any new Federal spending.
Finally, H.R. 818 will require the SBA to report to Congress on
January 31, 2003. The report will document the number of loans made,
the areas served by the pilot and the estimated savings to the
government as a result of the program.
I want to again thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez), and my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird), for their assistance in moving the measure before us. Mr.
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 818.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my distinguished colleague
from the great State of Missouri, the chairman of the Committee on
Small Business, for his work in bringing this bill to the floor today
and for his initiative in seeking measures to assist and prevent
disasters throughout the country. I would also like to thank my
colleague from New York, the distinguished ranking member, who has
joined in working to prevent disasters and provide assistance for the
victims of disasters.
Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the need to adequately
support people whose lives have been devastated by natural disasters. I
happen to live in a district where disasters are not uncommon. With
Mount Saint Helens in our district, with heavy rainfall
[[Page 3256]]
and, unfortunately, with recent landslides, we face a growing need,
unfortunately, to have our citizens prepared to prevent and to respond
to disasters when they do occur.
Just last week I spent dozens of hours working with a group of
citizens from a neighborhood in Kelso, Washington, whose homes have
been completely destroyed by a slow-moving landslide. From this
experience I have learned a great deal about what happens to families
and to neighborhoods when disaster strikes, and I know how imperative
it is to help those folks cope with disasters once they occur. I also
believe that we need to do more to focus on disaster prevention, and it
is to that issue that we speak today.
In the past 10 years, FEMA has spent over $20 billion to help rebuild
communities after natural disasters, and the SBA has approved billions
more in loans during that same period of time. In 1998 alone, SBA
approved over 30,000 loans valued at approximately $728 million. As I
speak to my colleagues today, the Cascade Mountains in Washington State
are laden with more than two times the normal average snow pack, and if
we have an unfortunate weather occurrence, the probability of flooding
is quite high. So clearly any approach, such as that which we are
discussing today, to minimize damages resulting from natural disasters
has the potential to reduce costs to all our taxpayers and, more
importantly, to save peoples' lives and homes.
For that reason, I have been strongly supportive of the Impact
Program of FEMA that incorporates a simple philosophy: Invest today in
long-term prevention so that we may reduce damages resulting from
natural disasters. By taking modest steps in advance, we really can
save money; and, more importantly, we can save lives.
The operative notion today is money spent in prevention will save all
of us money in post-disaster assistance. This legislation will create a
demonstration program at SBA. It will provide low-interest loans to
small businesses to finance measures that might reduce property loss
and increase worker safety in the event of a natural disaster. It
authorizes SBA to finance up to $15 million in new loans each year for
5 years and to award those loans to businesses who want to make the
necessary changes to reduce disaster impact. This bill also contains an
accountability measure. It requires the SBA administrator to report to
Congress in the fourth year of the program regarding the number of
loans it provided and the estimated savings to the taxpayers and the
government that will result from the mitigation efforts.
Mr. Speaker, in our own lives we all try to anticipate risks and try
to do what we can to prevent them. Today's effort represents a common-
sense, bipartisan approach to minimizing disaster impact. It has the
support of Republicans and Democrats alike because it has the potential
to save taxpayers' money and to save the lives of our citizens.
So, again, I want to express my profound appreciation to the chairman
and to the ranking member and encourage my colleagues in joining me
today in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird) for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 818, the Disaster
Mitigation Pilot Program.
Traditionally, business owners have only been able to get help after
a natural disaster has struck and caused damage to their business. For
many small businesses, this assistance comes too late to save them from
economic ruin. The loss of revenue and time needed to recover causes
countless businesses to fail. Instead of being able to rebuild, many
communities are faced with a loss of jobs as many businesses
permanently close after a disaster.
We have seen this happen again and again over the past few years.
Hurricanes, floods and wildfires have threatened economic stability and
the future of communities across this Nation. However, until today,
businesses have only been able to get help after it is too late.
Today's legislation will change this story.
Mr. Speaker, today we are taking an important step in being proactive
rather than just reactive to natural disasters. H.R. 818, the Disaster
Mitigation Pilot Program, authorizes $75 million to be used by SBA in
cooperation with FEMA over the next 5 years to help businesses in
disaster-prone areas take preventive measures to avert or minimize
damage should disaster strike. By enabling businesses to take
preventive measures which mitigate the damages caused by floods,
hurricanes and other disasters, this program would allow them to
recover much faster. Therefore, instead of going out of business, they
will be able to get back to business much quicker than ever before.
The Disaster Mitigation Program is a common-sense approach to helping
businesses cope with disasters. The program also makes fiscal sense.
Some estimates show that every dollar spent on mitigation saves $2 in
money that will otherwise have to be spent on post-disaster response.
Not only will businesses and taxpayers come out ahead, but the American
economy will as well.
Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent). Their constituents
face the threat of natural disaster, and their insight and hard work on
this legislation have been a great help to all of us. I strongly
support H.R. 818, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this important
piece of legislation.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
{time} 1315
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for yielding time to me.
I also want to take this opportunity to commend our hard-working
chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Jim Talent), and the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Nydia Velazquez) for their
leadership and creativity which is providing unprecedented support for
small businesses across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues and express my strong
support for H.R. 818, a bill which authorizes $15 million for the
Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program of the Small Business Administration.
Although there is hardly a part of this country that has not been
victimized by natural disasters, as Members know, I represent a
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has been devastated by over 5
major hurricanes over the past 10 years. I therefore know firsthand the
importance of the Small Business Disaster Assistance Program.
As a matter of fact, the Virgin Islands has utilized $388 million in
disaster loan assistance since that time, third only to California and
Florida.
Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this legislation. Once H.R. 818 is
enacted into law, the SBA will be joining FEMA's Project IMPACT in
providing a means for businesses to mitigate the effects of hurricanes.
It will be reducing the overall damage to the community that these
storms can cause.
I am a resident of the island of St. Croix, which is a Project IMPACT
designee, and has been cited by FEMA for its successful mitigation
efforts in decreasing damage, injuries, and recovery costs to that
agency. Hurricane Georges came through the Virgin Islands, but we heard
very little about it because we were prepared. We are a testimony to
the fact that mitigation works.
This is a program that I know will be embraced by communities across
the country as they try to deal with disasters. I urge the passage of
H.R. 818.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear how successful this
program can be.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
[[Page 3257]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 818, the Small Business
Disaster Mitigation Coordination Act. This is a $15 million effort to
help small businesses in disaster-prone areas to take preventative
measures to avert and minimize damage due to natural disasters.
This bill, as we have already heard, will further assist FEMA and the
SBA in reducing disaster losses by focusing the energy of these
departments on the importance of helping small businesses prepare and
recover from natural disasters.
By passing H.R. 818, Congress will help FEMA and the SBA provide more
disaster assistance to one of the most vulnerable segments of our
society, small and very small businesses.
For instance, on August 16th, 1997, severe thunderstorms released
heavy amounts of rain in a short period of time. The National Weather
Service reported that over 4 inches of rain fell in less than 2 hours
on the West Side of Chicago and in neighboring suburban communities. As
much as 6.1 inches of rain were recorded in some areas.
The rate of rainfall produced flash flooding that severely overloaded
the stormwater drainage system. With nowhere else to flow, the
rainwater backed up into literally thousands of basements in the city
of Chicago, destroying homes and businesses alike. This bill will
enable these businesses to apply and receive loans to prepare before
disasters like this one strike.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent proposal put forth by the
Committee on Small Business. I think once again this committee has
risen to the occasion. It saw a need, recognized a problem, and got in
front of it. So I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman
Talent) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) for making sure that we as Congress do our part to prevent
disasters from devastating the small businesses of our Nation.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield such time as she
may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for California, and I am
sure Members understand that California has been through floods, fire,
and earthquakes in the last 5 years that have necessitated the heavy
assistance from FEMA that comes in reactively.
We certainly endorse the thrust of this H.R. 818, and commend both
sides for the effort they are putting into working effectively to help
small businesses be able to be proactive in an area that is of vital
concern to the whole Nation, not just California.
This would enable my small businesses to be able to move some of
their infrastructure to where the damage, whether it is a fire or
flood, will be less devastating, and in earthquakes, be able to assist
a small business survive the rock and rolling that happens in an
earthquake in California by being able to strap down their most
important pieces of equipment, so they are not damaged.
So it is very essential for us, and I would hope that it would be a
slightly larger amount than $15 million a year for 5 years. I think
California alone would be able to use that amount, but the effort is
what counts. I am sure that both sides will understand, and small
business will thank their representatives for being able to understand
how important this piece of legislation will be.
I heartily ask both sides to consider that this bill will be a very
highly proactive small business bill, because it will be small business
that will benefit from it.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 818, and I
congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the chairman,
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird) for their efforts in this regard.
For many people nationwide, I think Guam is synonymous with a number
of things. One of them is certainly natural disasters. Guam's location
as the ``center arrow'' of the Pacific Ocean's typhoon alley has made
my island community prone to disasters, sometimes on an annual basis.
In this decade alone, Guam has been subjected to at least a dozen
typhoons. At one time, five had hit Guam in the span of 3 months.
As many may recall, the most recent storm, Typhoon Paka, devastated
the island in December of 1997 and caused property damage of over $100
million. On top of these storms, Guam also became a victim of an 8.2
earthquake in 1994, which has been one of the strongest recorded in the
Pacific in this century.
H.R. 818 is good legislation. It is proactive, and it will prepare
communities, and in particular small businesses, for recovery. SBA
already assists my island community by giving SBA disaster loans, and
along with FEMA, SBA provides a Federal team that almost every citizen
in Guam knows about. I think very few communities could state that
their citizens know of what FEMA and SBA disaster loans are all about.
This legislation will help small businesses prepare for disasters,
perhaps reducing expenses at the other end of disasters, help
communities recover quickly, because small businesses help generate
economic activity, which will cause immediate recovery.
Reacting to a storm plagues many communities with confusion. This
pilot program aims to empower the business community with information
and mitigation activities which will prevent serious losses.
As the previous speaker noted, $15 million is a very small amount,
and we understand that this is a pilot project. We understand, too,
that the territories are full partners in this program. We certainly
hope that in coming years the amounts will be expanded, and we will do
everything we can to make sure this pilot project is a success.
I thank both sides for their efforts in this regard.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the statements of my colleagues clearly indicated,
the need for preventative, proactive, advanced measures to prevent the
damages of natural disasters is clear.
I would like to commend the chairman of this committee for his
foresight, his initiative, in moving this bill forward. I would like to
thank him and thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) for her support as well. This is a bill that has common
sense, it will save the taxpayers money, and it has bipartisan support.
I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will close briefly. I appreciate very much the
comments from my colleagues in support of this legislation.
I want to make a couple of points in closing, Mr. Speaker. One is
that we certainly are given to understand that it is the intention of
the administration to implement this legislation quickly, and I would
hope that is the case.
It is just a pilot program. There is no reason why it should not be
more than a pilot program. It makes perfect sense, and it is going to
help a lot of people. That is what it comes down to. So we hope that
the administration, the executive branch, will move quickly in
implementing this, and the Committee on both sides of the aisle is
going to assist in any way that we can.
The second point I wanted to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is as we have
all noted, we hope that this does save dollars for the Federal
government, for the Federal Treasury. I am confident it will do that.
But the human cost of disasters is what we really have to look at here.
[[Page 3258]]
On a very practical level, to the extent we can make this program a
working program, it means that small business people on flood plains,
small business people on coasts that are consistently battered by
typhoons or hurricanes, will have the opportunity to prevent this
damage from occurring. They can get glass windows replaced by
plexiglass. If they are a small accounting firm in a building, they can
get the building raised so that the flood does not affect them as much
as it otherwise would.
Anybody, Mr. Speaker, who has talked to individuals whose lives have
been devastated by natural disasters knows how important it is that we
give them an opportunity to prevent that from occurring in the first
place. That is what H.R. 818 does. I commend it to all the Members of
the House.
I thank, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
and in particular, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for
her assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 818.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. TALENT. 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 matter on H.R. 818.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
____________________
EXPORT APPLE ACT
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 609) to amend the Export Apple and Pear Act to limit the
applicability of the Act to apples.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 609
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF EXPORT APPLE AND PEAR ACT.
(a) Short Title.--The Act of June 10, 1933 (7 U.S.C. 581 et
seq.; commonly known as the Export Apple and Pear Act), is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 11. This Act may be cited as the `Export Apple
Act'.''.
(b) Definition of Apples.--Section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C.
589) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the
following new paragraph:
``(4) The term `apples' means fresh whole apples, whether
or not the apples have been in storage.''.
(c) Elimination of References to Pears.--Such Act is
further amended--
(1) by striking ``and/or pears'' each place it appears in
the first section and sections 5 and 6; and
(2) by striking ``or pears'' each place it appears in the
first section and sections 2, 3, and 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Export Apple Act replaces the Export Apple and Pear
Act, which was enacted on June 10, 1933. Currently, this 66-year-old
legislation requires that apples and pears meet certain standards prior
to export in order to ensure only high-quality U.S. fruit moves into
foreign commerce.
H.R. 609 amends the 1933 act by removing pears from the language, and
it will be permitting the means to increase the export of pears.
H.R. 609, which is sponsored by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden) removes pears from the act, thereby allowing U.S. exporters
greater flexibility in the changing international marketplace and the
opportunity to increase exports by gaining a foothold in emerging
markets.
The USDA has advised the committee that mandatory Federal quality
standards for pears are no longer needed to assure the high quality of
exporting pears. The USDA supports enactment of H.R. 609. As world
economies improve and areas of trade continue to decrease, new market
opportunities for fresh pears arise. In order to provide the
flexibility to meet the requirements of these new opportunities, H.R.
609 should be passed, and I would urge that my colleagues support this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 609, which updates the Apple
and Pear Export Act. For many years, the Apple and Pear Export Act
served pear growers well by ensuring a quality product to consumers
overseas. The pear industry is now seeking greater flexibility to sell
its product in emerging markets around the world.
{time} 1330
Recently, the sale of 200,000 cartons of pears to Russia was made
possible by a January, 1997, amendment to the act that allowed for the
shipment of a more competitive grade of pears to that country. Our
farmers are increasingly dependent on foreign markets. It is therefore
essential that regulations governing the agricultural industry be
designed to help producers compete in those markets.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this regulatory
improvement that will give pear growers greater flexibility to market
their product.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman who sponsored this
bill and has done a great job in just a few weeks of getting this bill
moved forward. We appreciate and commend his work.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for
their support of this legislation, and I appreciate the opportunity to
speak on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 609 will help expand export markets for our
Nation's pear growers. The Export Apple and Pear Act passed in 1933
required that apples and pears meet certain standards prior to export
to ensure that only the top quality pears and apples were exported.
The United States Department of Agriculture has stated that, because
of private contractual arrangements between buyers and sellers,
increasingly those arrangements are controlling the quality of U.S.
pear exports. The USDA believes that mandatory Federal quality
standards, as currently established under the act, are no longer needed
to assure the high quality of exported pears.
As new markets have opened up in the last decade, opportunities for
sale of lower grade and less expensive pears have arisen. Because of
the 1933 act, U.S. producers and exporters of pears have been unable to
meet the demand for lower grade pears in other countries without
receiving a waiver of the act from USDA.
The pear industry has on two occasions over the past decade
petitioned and received a waiver from the USDA to sell non-U.S. Grade
Number One and Fancy Grade winter pears in the emerging markets of
Central and South America and Russia. The waiver for Russia allowed the
industry to sell 200,000 cartons of pears to that Nation in 1997. Past
experience indicates that when these markets can afford it, they will
move on to purchase our higher grade fruit.
As world economies improve and barriers to trade continue to
decrease, new market opportunities for fresh pears arise. This
legislation will allow our pear growers to get a foothold in
[[Page 3259]]
emerging foreign markets. In order to provide the flexibility to meet
the requirements of these two opportunities without having to seek new
exemptions, the fresh pear industry is seeking to be removed from the
1933 Export Apple and Pear Act.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as I mentioned, has the support of the
USDA, pear industry and is not opposed by the apple industry.
Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this
legislation would not impose any costs on the Federal Government. H.R.
609 is sound policy that allows U.S. pear growers and exporters the
flexibility to compete in emerging foreign markets.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important
legislation to our pear growers, especially those of the Northwest, and
I commend and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) of the House Committee on
Agriculture for passage of this measure to the floor.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 609.
The question was taken.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the bill just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
NULLIFYING RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR GUARANTEED LOANS UNDER CONSOLIDATED
FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 882) to nullify any reservation of funds during fiscal year
1999 for guaranteed loans under the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act for qualified beginning farmers or ranchers, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 882
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NULLIFICATION OF RESERVATION OF FUNDS DURING
FISCAL YEAR 1999 FOR GUARANTEED LOANS UNDER THE
CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT FOR
QUALIFIED BEGINNING FARMERS OR RANCHERS.
Amounts shall be made available pursuant to section
346(b)(1)(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act for guaranteed loans, without regard to any reservation
under section 346(b)(2)(B) of such Act.
SEC. 2. QUALIFIED BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS TO BE GIVEN
PRIORITY IN MAKING GUARANTEED LOANS UNDER THE
CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
FROM SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1999.
In making guaranteed loans under the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act from funds made available pursuant to
any Act making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year
1999, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, to the extent
practicable, give priority to making such loans to qualified
beginning farmers and ranchers (as defined in section
343(a)(11) of such Act).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor a bill, H.R. 882. This bill costs
nothing but will provide immediate relief to the Nation's farmers and
ranchers who are today experiencing a serious credit crunch brought on
by natural disasters and low commodity prices.
I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm),
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture, as well as the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Minge), and a number of other Members in introducing this measure.
Our bill is simple and straightforward. Currently, funds for
guaranteed ownership loans are exhausted in more than half of the
States. Money for guaranteed operating loans with interest assistance
has dried up in most of the Corn Belt States and several others as
well. There is simply no money currently available for those farmers
desperately needing credit assistance now.
Meanwhile, there is approximately $470 million in loan guarantee
funds sitting in the Department of Agriculture that has gone unused and
will continue to go unused for another month unless Congress acts. By
law, these funds are tied up until April 1, 1999, for the Beginning
Farmers and Ranchers program, a worthwhile program that is nonetheless
not being tapped at this time.
This bill simply releases these unused funds one month early to
enable the Secretary of Agriculture to meet the very immediate need for
guaranteed loans in farm communities.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill is very important, I do want to advise
my colleagues that it does nothing to eliminate or in any way diminish
the tremendous need for the supplemental appropriations for agriculture
requested last week by the President. This bill is only a stopgap
measure to temporarily fill an immediate need that simply cannot wait
for a supplemental appropriation.
In short, the demand for credit is now. As many of my colleagues
know, American farmers and ranchers borrow more money every year than
most us will borrow in a lifetime, only to risk it all. Sometimes the
gamble pays off, and sometimes it does not. Last year, for many of
America's farmers, it did not. As a result, cash-strapped farmers who
have already made their planting decisions for the coming growing
season desperately require cash in-hand right now to make another go of
it.
This is the immediate short-term problem our bill would address if
enacted quickly.
Again, this bill does not cost the U.S. Treasury any additional
money. The funds in question have already been appropriated. In
addition, I want my colleagues to know that this measure enjoys the
support of the administration and a broad bipartisan support in the
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge immediate passage of H.R. 882.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 882 and urge its passage by
the House. H.R. 882 would provide available guaranteed loan funds to
farmers and ranchers currently working with their local lenders to
ready their finances for planting or in deciding whether to keep their
livestock herds intact.
The Department of Agriculture is projecting they will run out of
guaranteed operating funds nationwide by March the 15, with interest
assisted operating loan funds depleted by the end of this week. Many of
my colleagues may already be receiving phone calls from constituents
who are getting ready to plant and need to buy seed, but they have been
told there are no USDA loan funds available so they cannot go out and
buy their needed inputs.
H.R. 882 would speed up the needed release of available guaranteed
loan funds that have been reserved for beginning farmers and ranchers
until April 1. Since we are not certain when a supplemental spending
bill may be approved by the Congress, we could face a situation where
ag producers are left without the ability to purchase needed inputs.
H.R. 882 will provide a bridge to agriculture producers and lenders
until we
[[Page 3260]]
are able to provide additional credit funds and supplemental
appropriations legislation. While it does help by providing needed
credit that is already available on a more timely basis, it does not do
away with the need for Congress to act on this front.
This is especially true since H.R. 882 only deals with the guaranteed
loan programs and does not help ease the immediate need for additional
emergency loan funds and the pending need for additional direct
operating and ownership loan funds.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support this modest,
fiscally responsible step to help ease the financial strain facing our
farmers and ranchers as well as their hometown banks and local
communities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), chairman of the Subcommittee on
General Farm Commodities, Resource Conservation, and Credit of the
House Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
882, which is a bill to provide some stopgap funding for some
guaranteed loans for our agricultural producers.
This bill would eliminate the restrictions on about $470 million
worth of guaranteed loans under the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act for qualified beginning farmers and ranchers. This is a
much-needed piece of legislation that would provide for stopgap funding
for many States that have exhausted their available allocations of
guaranteed loan funds, including my own State of Nebraska.
It is important to stress that this money that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has has not been used. The beginning farmer targets would
be lifted on April 1. It would not be possible for the Department to
use the ``fenced'' $470 million by April 1.
Of particular concern as we prepare for spring planting in the
Midwest is the ability of producers to show an adequate cash flow as
they meet with their lenders. This legislation would make valuable use
of this money now as farmers are preparing for their spring planting.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we have producers in rural
areas that are struggling with low market prices and adverse weather
conditions. With current market prices, some farmers are being faced
with the added difficulty of obtaining operating loans.
Freeing up the beginning farmer guaranteed loan money that has not
been used will be of great benefit to our producers. Nullifying any
reservation of funds will potentially benefit a producer who otherwise
would not have had a loan funding available.
As the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) has indicated, I would
also stress to my colleagues that there is still a need for what the
President has requested in the supplemental. This legislation is not
meant to replace the supplemental, but it will get our producers
through perhaps the next 30, 45 days or so.
If a beginning farmer needs money, they probably have gotten it by
now, as it has been available since late October. However, for those
still in the USDA bureaucratic pipeline, this legislation says that
beginning farmers will have priority under the supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has been doing its part to help our beleaguered
producers; and this legislation is yet another effort to ensure that
our farmers and ranchers will have adequate capital this spring. I urge
the passage of H.R. 882.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) for yielding me this time.
I want to take this opportunity this afternoon to thank the gentleman
from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), the ranking member, for their hard work in bringing this
important piece of legislation to the floor this afternoon in such a
quick manner.
I am proud to be a cosponsor on this legislation, and I am glad that
we are passing a bill that will help farmers through some of the most
difficult times that they will face in decades.
Mr. Speaker, for more than a year now, farmers have been excluded
from the robust economy that the rest of this country has enjoyed.
While many citizens debate whether or not to roll over their IRAs,
farmers are just trying to figure out how they can survive and put food
on the table until this crisis has been turned around.
We have to take action to make sure that they survive and they have
an opportunity to prosper. If we do not, consumers will want to know
why the grocery store shelves are empty and food prices are so high,
while farmers are left to pick up the pieces. We have to act now.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Secretary Glickman came to a farm breakfast
in my district. More than 300 farmers showed up for breakfast. That is
twice the number that normally come in any given year. From the
comments of what those folks said at that breakfast, they are hurting
and hurting badly.
{time} 1345
These loans will determine whether or not some of those farmers and
their families and their neighbors can stay on the farm. I am glad we
are taking action to help farmers make it through the dire straits that
they now face and that we will act today.
Our small farmers are a vital part of our economic fiber in this
country. They are important to the character of rural North Carolina
and America, and we cannot afford for those small farmers to cease to
exist.
I am proud of what we are doing this afternoon, and I want to make
sure that this important program is available to farmers as they
approach the critical spring planning season.
This is the first, as you have already heard, in many steps,
including crop insurance reform and supplemental funding for this year
as we look at the 1999 year that this Congress must take to strengthen
the safety net for our farmers.
I urge unanimous passage of H.R. 882, and I look forward to working
with my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and others in this
Congress to make sure that we provide a safe and secure future for
American farmers so the rest of us might enjoy a safe and secure future
and good food.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Etheridge) for pointing out the fact that, while so many people in
this country think the economy is doing so well, it is obvious those
who say that have not been in the farm communities recently. There are
some very, very difficult times ongoing there.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 882.
Natural disasters and low commodity prices have forced many farmers and
ranchers to seek government loans to cover operating and ownership
expenses. In fact, in many states, funds available for these USDA
programs have already been exhausted, creating a credit crunch at a
time when these loans are absolutely necessary to cover producers
expenses.
H.R. 882 will immediately make available to the Secretary of
Agriculture $450 to $500 million in unused funds in order to guarantee
loans to farmers and ranchers. These unused funds are currently set
aside for the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers program but were not to be
available until April 1. Because it is not anticipated that these funds
will ever be used by this program it makes sense to have them available
for those most in need.
This bill requires no new net government outlays and will have no
effect on the federal budget. It is a common-sense reaction to the
problems facing rural America today and it deserves our full support.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 882.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
[[Page 3261]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 882, the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEE INITIATIVE
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 32) expressing the sense of the Congress that the
President and the Congress should join in undertaking the Social
Security Guarantee Initiative to strengthen and protect the retirement
income security of all Americans through the creation of a fair and
modern Social Security Program for the 21st Century, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. Res. 32
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Social Security
Guarantee Initiative''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the Social Security program provides benefits to
44,000,000 Americans, including more than 27,000,000
retirees, 5,000,000 people with disabilities, and 2,000,000
surviving children, and is essential to the dignity and
security of the Nation's elderly, disabled, and their
families;
(2) the Social Security program's progressive benefit
structure is of particular importance to women, due to their
(A) longer life expectancies than men, making the Social
Security program's lifetime, inflation-adjusted benefits a
critical income support especially for widows; (B) lower
average earnings; and (C) lower pension and other retirement
savings, stemming in part from their lower incomes and their
spending an average of 11 years out of the paid workforce
caring for families;
(3) the approaching retirement of the Baby Boom Generation
will result in the Social Security program's benefit costs
exceeding its tax revenues beginning in 2013;
(4) the Social Security program faces looming insolvency
and instability in the next century so that by 2032 the
Social Security Trust Funds will be fully depleted and the
program will be able to honor less than 75 percent of benefit
commitments; and
(5) prompt action is necessary to restore Americans'
confidence that their retirement benefits will be protected.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
The President and the Congress should join in strengthening
the Social Security program and protecting the retirement
income security of all Americans for the 21st century in a
manner that--
(1) ensures equal treatment across generations to all
Americans, especially minorities and other low-income
workers;
(2) recognizes the unique obstacles that women face in
ensuring retirement, disability, and survivor security and
the essential role that the Social Security program plays in
protecting financial stability for women;
(3) provides a continuous benefit safety net for workers,
their survivors, their dependents, and individuals with
disabilities;
(4) protects guaranteed lifetime benefits, including cost-
of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation, for
current and future retirees; and
(5) does not increase taxes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
General Leave
Mr. SHAW. 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. 32.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, our work on Social Security is well under way. We have
held numerous Social Security hearing already this year, and the
President has provided us with a framework for the Congress to consider
as we work towards a bipartisan solution to Social Security's problems.
In fact, we are in agreement with President Clinton on many of the
major issues relating to preserving and strengthening our Social
Security system; namely, one, action is necessary now to shore up
Social Security's financial underpinnings; two, 62 percent of the
Federal budget surplus should be set aside until Social Security is
indeed saved; three, investment in markets can be a part of the long-
term solution for Social Security; and, four, personal savings accounts
are both technically feasible and a necessary part of the solution.
Passage of H.J. Res. 32 will add to this strong start and will
further strengthen our bipartisanship as we face the challenges ahead.
The joint resolution says that Congress and the President should
protect benefits for current and future retirees while avoiding any tax
increases.
On a program as vital to our country as Social Security, I am sure
all of my colleagues will agree that we must work together, and H.J.
Res. 32 is a measure that deserves all of our support. I hope they will
join with me in showing the American people that Congress is committed
to strengthening and preserving Social Security for the future and for
future generations.
Let me also add that I view this resolution as a test of whether the
two parties can work together. We certainly did in the passage of this
in the full committee. If we divide into partisanship over a simple,
noncontroversial resolution affirming our support for Social Security,
why should the American people expect us to be able to work together to
actually save Social Security.
Whatever our differences may be, and I am sure we will have plenty of
differences, surely we can agree on this resolution as it is vitally
necessary to the future of Social Security that we do work together and
we work together in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in the old partisan days, I would say this resolution is
good because Santa Clause is coming through. But recognize that we have
not had too many legislative accomplishments. Being very anxious to
display some degree of bipartisanship, let me congratulate the majority
for this resolution for whatever it means.
In the olden days, when people saw a problem, they started
legislating. But if this is a new thing, where you send a message that
I recognize the problem and I do intend to legislate, well, who can be
against that?
So let me join with my Republican colleagues and say we have a very,
very serious problem with Social Security in its present form. The
majority party is acknowledging that it is going to do something about
it. They have met the President halfway in terms of identifying the
set-aside of the 62 percent. But they have a great deal of difficulty
in stating that they will not entertain a tax cut from using the
surplus until such time as we take care of the Social Security system
and the Medicare trust system as we know it.
Now, I do not know why these things are omitted. I have no idea as to
why they are difficult to talk about. But let me join with my friend
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and say that half a loaf is
better than nothing. I sincerely hope that we get beyond these
resolutions and see what we can do in a bipartisan way to find a
solution to this serious problem.
The reason I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I know that this problem does not lend itself to
a Republican answer or to a Democratic answer. If it is going to be
done, and we both hope that it will be done, it has to be done in a
bipartisan way.
What has been done to move us closer to a bipartisan effort besides
this resolution, I do not know. But if, with a great deal of
imagination, I can say that let this be that one first step toward a
journey which has to be concluded this year if we are going to do
anything at all, then I want to be on the floor to join with the
gentleman from Florida in this resolution.
[[Page 3262]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui), and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the architect of this joint resolution.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
and the comments that were made. We do have to get beyond resolutions
and get to real solutions. But as we debate what we are going to do on
Social Security, we need to send a message to our Nation's Social
Security retirees, our current beneficiaries, that they will be held
harmless in this debate as we move forward on Social Security.
I authored this resolution because I believe it is vital that
Congress send a very clear message to the millions of Americans who
rely on Social Security today.
As we debate how best to fix and preserve Social Security, we must
also commit ourselves to guaranteeing this generation of retirees that
their benefits will be there when they need them.
I recently completed 21 town hall meetings over the Congressional
recess on Social Security throughout southern Wisconsin. At every
single one of these meetings, I had constituents who are concerned
about the talk they hear on Social Security. Whether it is 62 percent,
38 percent, whatever percent, they are concerned that their current
level of benefits will be diminished.
I think it is very important that we, as a conference, on a
bipartisan basis, send a signal that their benefits will not be cut;
that we have to preserve guaranteed benefits for current retirees and
people who are about to retire. Then we have to look at how we are
going to keep Social Security solvent for future generations.
This is the most important task that is facing this Congress this
year. I think that this resolution gets us off to a good start, gets us
off to a bipartisan agreement.
From the western edge of my district in Brodhead, Wisconsin, to the
shores of Lake Michigan in Racine, at every stop, I heard these types
of comments. There was one thing that I learned, that I heard from an
older gentleman in Evansville, Wisconsin; and this is a remarkable
recommendation. I want to quote him. He said, ``If Congress allows
Social Security to go broke, and seniors can no longer receive their
benefits, then Members of Congress should not be allowed to receive
their pensions.''
The people will hold this Congress and this administration
accountable, and they should. Thousands of other seniors throughout my
district have echoed these concerns. They have great concerns about
whether Social Security will be there as we negotiate and as we put
together a bipartisan agreement to fix this program for the seniors in
the future.
But I want to be very clear about what this resolution does. One, for
current and soon-to-be retirees, there will be no loss of benefits, no
additional costs to beneficiaries, and no increased payroll taxes. Two,
for the next generation of retirees who are now paying into the Social
Security program, we must guarantee that the program will be saved and
that their benefits will be there in their retirement years.
Mr. Speaker, we have a historic opportunity to preserve what has been
one of our Nation's most successful programs. I look forward to working
with both seniors in my district and my colleagues in Congress on this
important issue.
I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of the
resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the most successful
domestic program in the history of our Nation, keeping 40 percent of
our elderly out of poverty and 800,000 children out of poverty.
I support this resolution. But the real issue is whether Congress
will finish the work begun by the President when he introduced the
framework for Social Security, strengthening our system. The
President's plan lays out a good foundation of reducing public debt and
shoring up the program's assets.
Social Security is too important of a program to play partisan
politics. We must focus on improving the Trust Fund rate of return,
restoring long-term solvency, and protecting benefits for current and
future retirees. We should also focus on helping Americans save for
their retirement to supplement the guaranteed benefit they receive from
Social Security.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should make strengthening Social Security
and Medicare our top fight and enact those reforms before any other
aspect of our budget. Let us make it our top priority. Let us get it
done. Let us get it done in a bipartisan way, and let us move on,
really, to the bill itself rather than just this resolution.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of House
Joint Resolution 32. I want to thank my fellow freshman, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his leadership on this issue.
This bill is our opportunity to stand up and say our government will
pay what it owes the people. We are committed to keeping the promise of
Social Security.
When our constituents look at their pay stubs, they see a large
portion of their hard-earned money going to Social Security. Ninety-six
percent of all workers pay 12.4 percent of payroll taxes. That is 148
million workers and their employers.
{time} 1400
Every one of those workers sees the exact dollar amount on the
Social Security portion of their paychecks. In exchange for that money,
they expect a certain amount of help in their retirement years. They
expect that money to come back to them in later years. I repeat, they
expect that money to come back to them in later years. They do not care
about charts and graphs here in Washington, they just know that money
is going out of their pockets and expect to have some of it come back.
They have paid for Social Security, they have been promised the money
will come back to them when they retire, and we are committed to making
sure that promise is kept.
I know that some changes, some of them possibly difficult changes,
will have to be made to make Social Security solvent, but we need to
keep our promise.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the historic
importance of Social Security and commits the Congress to protect
guaranteed lifetime benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments that
fully index for inflation, for current and future retirees. For this
reason, I will vote for it, but I must note several flaws in the
resolution.
We should have included a provision that states that Social Security
should be strengthened in a way that does not cut benefits, does not
raise the retirement age, and does not place individuals at financial
risk in their senior years by diverting Social Security tax revenues to
individual private accounts. These ought to be the guiding principles
of the Social Security debate.
This resolution also states as fact the prediction of the trustees
that by 2032 the trust funds will be fully depleted and the program
will be able to honor less than 75 percent of benefit commitments. But
this prediction will be correct only if the trustees' other prediction,
that our economic growth rate will decline from 3.8 percent to 1.5
percent, and stay at that absurdly low level for 70 years, is also
correct.
All of the budget calculations of the administration, the House
Committee
[[Page 3263]]
on the Budget, the Senate Committee on the Budget, and CBO assume much
higher growth rates. Nobody really believes that the 1.5 percent
prediction of the trustees is anywhere near correct. So we should not
make a congressional finding of fact we do not really believe to be
true.
But even granting the trustees' projection for the sake of argument,
the shortfall predicted by the trustees is still small and manageable,
can be completely funded in a way that does not cut benefits, raise the
retirement age, raise tax rates or shift economic risk to individuals
by shifting to a system of individual accounts.
I plan on introducing legislation later this week that will do just
that.
Raising the retirement age, which is a key component of many so-
called ``reform'' proposals, is cruel and unnecessary, especially for
those whose careers demand hard physical labor, and this resolution
ought to say so.
Cutting benefits, either directly or by replacing the defined benefit
nature of Social Security with a defined contribution program, would
devastate millions of Americans who are just barely getting by right
now. Benefits should not be reduced and the basic guarantee of Social
Security must not be undermined in any way. This is crucial, and it
ought to be included in this resolution.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), who has early on been working very hard on a
reform package.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
good words.
This resolution is good. All resolutions are good that move us ahead
with a commitment to fix this significant problem. I think maybe we
will start believing these resolutions and we will do it.
But, look, everybody needs to understand it is not easy. A Committee
on the Budget staffer just figured out if we put every cent of the
surplus into Social Security at a nominal return of 10.5 percent, every
cent of the surplus over the next 5 years, it would only keep Social
Security solvent until the year 2040.
I mean this is a tough question. It is so easy to demagogue. I hope
there will be a commitment by both sides of the aisle and the President
of the United States to not criticize parts of the program as we try to
move ahead with a very serious effort to make a solution. I would ask
the Democrats to give us their ideas and their proposals that can be
scored to keep Social Security solvent and, likewise, Republicans do
the same, to try to seriously move ahead with saving a very important
program.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time, and I wish to use this opportunity for a little prekindergarten
101 budget talk.
Through all the rhetoric we hear today and we are soon to hear as we
anxiously await the budget for 2000, let us remind ourselves today
there is no surplus to be divided for any purpose for the next 2 years,
other than by using Social Security Trust Fund. And for the next 5
years there is $82 billion that are non-Security Trust Fund.
Let us remind ourselves of that and use this opportunity in a
bipartisan way, as we unanimously vote for this resolution today, that
what we are saying is, unequivocally, that a lot of the rhetoric we
hear about who and how much we are going to spend, and how much we are
going to cut taxes, will not fit within the spirit of the resolution
that is voted on today.
Let us remind ourselves of that today as we vote for this and use
this in a positive way to do what all of us want to do, both sides of
the aisle. And I agree with the gentleman from Michigan, there are some
of us on this side, as on that side, that are willing to make some of
the tough choices. That will come through committee work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This resolution
doesn't do anything to actually strengthen Social Security, but I hope
that it is the beginning of a bipartisan process to honestly address
the financial problems facing Social Security.
Social Security reform should start by walling off the Social
Security surplus and saving it for Social Security. We shouldn't even
talk about budget surpluses until we have truly taken Social Security
off-budget by balancing the budget without counting the Social Security
surplus. All of the Social Security surplus should be saved for Social
Security by using them to reduce the debt held by the public.
There is no surplus today unless you count the Social Security
surplus. A tax cut that is not paid for will require us to increase
borrowing from Social Security trust fund for purposes other than
saving it for Social Security.
I want to remind all of my colleagues that there is no free lunch.
The promised benefits under Social Security will cost $9 trillion more
than we can afford over the next 75 years--that money will have to come
from somewhere. The Directors of the Congressional Budget Office and
the General Accounting Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan have all testified that Congress and the President must make
tough choices to bring Social Security costs in line with revenues.
Many proposals that appear on the surface to offer painless resolutions
have significant hidden costs and shortcomings which must be taken into
consideration.
I have been critical of the President's plan for avoiding the heavy
lifting of proposing reforms to deal with the unfunded liabilities of
the system. I am equally troubled by the proposals being floated by
some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that suggest that
individual accounts are a magic bullet that offers a painless solution
to save Social Security without making any structural reforms.
Rhetorically acknowledging that tough choices are inevitable is not
enough. Reaching agreement on fiscally responsible legislation that
truly makes Social Security financially sound without simply shifting
costs to future taxpayers will require leadership by the President and
Congressional leadership. I encourage both the President and the
Leadership hear in Congress to provide the leadership necessary to move
the debate beyond the misleading suggestion that projected surpluses
alone will save Social Security and begin a serious discussion about
the tough choices that remain.
There is a bipartisan bill that meets all of the principles in this
resolution which makes Social Security financially sound and gives
future generations the flexibility to address other priorities. Jim
Kolbe and I have proposed legislation, the 21st Century Retirement
Security Plan, which would preserve the best features of the current
system while modernizing it for the 21st century. Our plan would
strengthen the safety net, restore the long-term solvency of the Social
Security Trust Fund, reduces future liabilities and increase individual
control over retirement income, all without increasing taxes.
The plan would create individual security accounts, funded through a
portion of the current payroll tax, to explicitly replace unfunded
liabilities by prefunding a portion of future retirement income. The
plan also establishes a minimum benefit provision which, for the first
time, guarantees that workers who work all their life and play by the
rules will be protected from poverty, regardless of what happens to
their individual accounts. We make benefit changes in a progressive
manner through bend point changes that affect middle and upper income
workers, who will benefit from individual accounts. Perhaps most
importantly, our legislation ensures that future governments will have
resources to deal with other problems in addition to providing Social
Security by honestly confronting the future unfunded liabilities of the
system that will threaten other budgetary priorities if we do not take
action.
I encourage all my colleagues to follow through on the bipartisan
rhetoric embodied in this resolution and roll up our sleeves to tackle
the tough choices necessary to strengthen and preserve Social Security
for the 21st Century.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, there is a daunting challenge at hand, and part of that
challenge of saving Social Security is to approach this problem not as
Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans; understanding the
dependence of many in their old age on this program, understanding the
concerns of those of generations just entering the work force,
understanding the concerns of baby boomers who have paid into the
system and hope to see it continue.
As we begin this debate, as we work to solve this problem, this
resolution is
[[Page 3264]]
a good starting point. In committee we accepted many amendments from
our friends in the minority. Now, there is not unanimity, to be sure,
but with this resolution we reaffirm the primacy, necessity and
commitment of this Congress to the Social Security program. And, more
importantly, we say, let us save it without increasing taxes and
protecting against inflation. So that is where we start.
I would echo the comments of my colleague from Michigan; that we
should avoid the temptation to point fingers, to engage in fear rather
than facts. And the reality must be borne out by our rhetoric and, more
importantly, our resolve. The American people look to us and count on
us, and in this spirit today it begins now with the passage of this
resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I basically support this resolution.
Americans have been misled by some to doubt that Social Security will
provide retirement security. In fact, Social Security does not face a
financial crisis. A projected shortfall occurring 34 years in the
future is not a crisis, it is a projection. No other organization,
public or private, has a plan for operation nearly two generations into
the future.
Social Security does face a political crisis if Congress abandons its
commitments to guarantee benefits. This resolution is a good first move
and should put to rest whether Social Security will pay full benefits.
With this resolution Congress pledges to guarantee paying full benefits
to current and future retirees.
A pledge is good. Making it the law would be better. Congress will
have to add this concept in any reform legislation we adopt to make the
words of this resolution meaningful. We must work to ensure that any
reform legislation Congress passes also upholds the Social Security
guarantee that promised benefits are as good as money and are backed by
the full faith and credit of the United States, just like our currency
and bonds.
I hope everyone will join me in adding meaning to this resolution by
writing the Social Security guarantee into law.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of my colleague from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his introduction of a resolution that
undertakes the Social Security Guarantee Initiative. Through this
resolution we establish a framework for debate and reaffirm our
commitment to the long-term solvency of Social Security.
It is clear to me that the moment is prime for a national debate on
Social Security. The citizens of our Nation understand the importance
of Social Security's fiscal health, not only for the time being but for
generations yet to come. They expect their elected officials to come
together in a bipartisan fashion to provide solutions.
I recently had the opportunity to lead a forum on the future of
Social Security reform. What struck me the most about this particular
event was that its main participants were not a panel of experts or a
group of politicians. Instead, those most interested were concerned
North Carolinians who have a stake in the system and expect a fair
return on their investment. They do not need policy experts from
Washington to explain to them that in a few years the government will
not have enough money to keep the promises it made when the program
began.
Mr. Speaker, ensuring the viability of Social Security is a tall
challenge, and I realize there is no silver bullet, but we must take
one step at a time. I support the resolution before us now and the
spirit of cooperation that it represents. Citizens from my district,
the Eighth District of North Carolina, expect their elected officials,
Republicans and Democrats alike, to work together for a better future.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
The resolution calls for equal treatment in Social Security across
generations, especially for workers of minorities. It says Congress
must recognize the unique obstacles facing women and the disabled. The
resolution says we must guarantee a lifetime benefit for America's
elderly and those future retirees and avoid, in the process, increasing
taxes.
Now, I support these principles, and I believe the President's
framework also advances these principles in the administration's
proposal for dealing with Social Security. I am, therefore, going to
vote for this resolution. But I want to note the resolution, in and of
itself, does nothing.
A point of concern I would have about it is that sometimes I have
seen resolutions offered by majorities that have no intention on
actually advancing legislation to get something done. I have also seen
resolutions extolling principles advanced when the plan is to advance
legislation that actually achieves something quite different.
Now, the ultimate question, and the point of uncertainty, can only be
addressed by a plan. So I say to the majority, give us a plan. Let us
move the debate past meaningless resolutions to actual debate.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution because
it involves the most important of all issues, preserving Social
Security and Medicare. But while I appreciate the sentiments, I think
it is most important we really get down to legislation.
In a sense, this is a baby step when we need a great leap forward. It
is entitled Social Security Guarantee Initiative, but it really
guarantees nothing. We have to get busy on legislation. The President
has proposed his position, now we need to hear from the majority and
then begin to compare notes and to act.
This resolution would be more meaningful if it had said that the
first priority should be to save Social Security and Medicare as we
proposed in the full committee. But in any event, let us pass this
resolution and then get down to a bipartisan effort to secure Social
Security and Medicare for the long run.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this
resolution, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for the statements they
have made publicly to work together in a bipartisan way.
One statement we will make very clear today is every Member of the
House, I expect, will vote for this. Because even though we may
disagree a little bit on how to do it, we all stand here because we
want to save Social Security. In fact, we are committed to saving
Social Security not just for today's seniors but for future
generations, the next three generations, who depend on Social Security.
When I think of Social Security, I think of my own mom and dad, now
in their 70s. I think of my nieces and nephews that are college age and
entering the work force out of high school. They all look for Social
Security. They have paid their dues into Social Security, and they want
Social Security to be there when it is their turn.
Social Security today, as some have pointed out, is sound for today's
seniors. But the question is how are we going to make Social Security
sound for future generations. That is the challenge that is before us.
I hope we remember as we go through this process the importance of
looking at how Social Security impacts women as we look at the numbers;
as we look at ways to ensure that we treat women equally and fairly
when it comes to Social Security. Because it is clear that statistics
show that elderly women have been almost twice as likely as elderly men
to live in poverty. That is a challenge we need to meet, and I hope we
can do it in a bipartisan way.
Once again, I also plan to offer an additional solution to help
supplement Social Security. I believe that we
[[Page 3265]]
should reward retirement savings. I believe that we should eliminate
discrimination against retirement savings and allow people to
contribute more to their 401(k)s and their IRAs.
{time} 1415
We should also allow working moms to make up missed contributions
through catch-up IRAs, allow them to make up the contributions for
their retirement accounts that they could have made had they stayed
working and instead chose to stay home with their children.
We should allow working moms to have that opportunity. Catch-up IRAs
will be a big help for women. Let us work in a bipartisan way.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Social Security Subcommittee, I
strongly support H.J. Res. 32. This resolution expresses the willingess
of Congress to work with the President to strengthen and protect the
Social Security system for current and future generations. Just last
week, this resolution passed the Ways and Means Committee with a
unanimous, bipartisan vote of 32-0.
Social Security affects the majority of Americans, whether it be a 70
year old retiree, a 40 year old parent, or a 19 year old college
student. We all pay our Social Security taxes with the promise that
when we retire, we will collect the benefits that are due to us.
Unfortunately, our Social Security system is in dire straits and it is
our responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure that the program
remains healthy and stable far into the 21st century.
As we discuss ways to change the system, we must also remember that
women, even more than men, rely on the Social Security system for
financial security in their golden years. Over their lifetime, because
of family commitments, many women cannot accumulate adequate pension
savings. By the mid-1990s, only 18 percent of women over the age of 64
received their own pension benefits and their pension benefits were
less than half of those received by men.
Additionally, we must keep certain important statistics in mind. In
1997, elderly women were almost twice as likely as elderly men to live
in poverty. Additionally, the poverty rate for unmarried elderly women
was 19 percent in 1997. This is a crucial statistic because 60 percent
of elderly women are unmarried. Also significant, nearly 30 percent of
elderly black and Hispanic women lived in poverty in 1997, making
Social Security especially important to minority, elderly women.
To help women save for their later years, I plan to again offer
legislation to help improve retirement savings opportunities for women
and other individuals who opted out of the workforce to raise families.
These Catch-up IRAs will also allow individuals approaching retirement
the ability to save more for their golden years, and for all savers the
ability to make additional ``after tax'' contributions to their savings
plans.
I am encouraged by H.J. Res. 32 and I hope that President Clinton
will join us in finding bipartisan solutions to the problems that
plague our Social Security System. Additionally, I hope that we can
continue to work together to find Social Security reform solutions
which protect the special needs of women in their retirement years.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important
resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on H.J.Res. 32 in the Committee on Ways and
Means was not a debate about whether we should save Social Security or
give the American people a tax cut. Both the Democrats and Republicans
favor tax cuts so long as they are paid for. The debate was about
whether we would memorialize our commitment and then keep our promise
to the American people not to touch a dime of the surplus until we have
saved Social Security for future generations. This resolution does not
make that commitment.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security system is the most respected and
successful system in U.S. history. While my remarks will not change the
resolution, I want to let the American people know that I, along with
my Democratic colleagues, are serious about addressing the long-term
solvency problems facing the Social Security system and stand by our
commitment to save Social Security first.
We owe it to the over two-thirds of older Americans who rely on
Social Security for 50 percent or more of their total income. We owe it
to the hard-working American families who rely on Social Security for
continued prosperity as they enter into retirement. And, most of all,
we owe it to our children who deserve to know that Social Security is
going to be there for them.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of my
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Today, this Chamber
takes an important step toward strengthening our Nation's Social
Security system. However, this goal can only be achieved if we work
together to find a permanent solution to the problems facing this
important program.
The American people deserve more than Washington simply placing a
Band-Aid on the problem by offering a temporary solution. This would
not be leadership. It would be politics as usual. In order to assure
retirement income security for all Americans, both sides of the aisle
will have to work together, not against one another.
Ronald Reagan once said, there is no limit to what a man can do or
where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.
As we debate Social Security reform, it must not be about who gets
the credit but how can we shore up the system, provide equal treatment,
protect benefits and avoid tax increases for our fellow Americans.
Citizens of the Sixth District of Kentucky and across America want
genuine leadership. Let us give them just that and let us support this
resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding; and I want to thank the committee for bringing this
resolution to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, but let us
understand that this resolution is only the beginning. It pledges all
of us to save Social Security. That pledge will also have to include a
decision not to invade those Social Security trust funds.
This week, on the cover of Barron's Magazine, they have the headline
which screams to people in Washington, D.C. This week, the Dow Jones
financial magazine says there is no budget surplus. And they are quite
correct; there is no budget surplus. There is only money that is in
excess in the Social Security trust fund, and whether or not we save
Social Security will depend upon the decisions we make in this Congress
about whether we are going to break the budget caps that restrain
spending in this Congress; whether or not we are going to invade these
trust funds for a whole range of spending proposals that are currently
before the Congress.
If we do that this year and if we do that before 2001, every dollar
we spend will come out of the Social Security trust funds. Because
Barron's has it right. There is no other surplus. There is only the
Social Security trust funds.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today and just heard from the previous
speaker, both in terms of politics and substance, reforming Social
Security and making the needed changes to preserve the system over time
is going to be very, very difficult. It is going to require
bipartisanship; it is going to require trust; and it is going to
require small steps, many small steps, to get us there.
That is what I see this resolution being all about, it is a small
step in the right direction. It is not a solution. It is not the plan
to save Social Security. But it does lay out for the first time in this
Congress principles, basic principles, that I hope we can agree on, on
a bipartisan basis. That seems to me to be a very good starting point.
I would say also that there is a need to supplement Social Security
with more private retirement savings, and I
[[Page 3266]]
hope that we can work on a bipartisan basis on that as well. This is
our 401(k) plans, our IRA plans and so on. Because, ultimately, that is
an important part of retirement security for all Americans.
There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot get this done and get
it done this year, so long as we reach out across the aisle and work on
a bipartisan basis. And I see us beginning to do that with this
resolution today; and, therefore, I strongly support it.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that here in Washington a
promise is never really a guarantee. And so the resolution that we have
before us today has been self-styled by the Republican leadership as
the ``Social Security Guarantee Initiative.'' But it is important for
every American to understand that there is no guarantee in the
Guarantee Initiative. It guarantees absolutely nothing in the way of
any substantive improvement in the Social Security system.
I believe it was not a Democrat but a Republican member of the
committee that studied this measure, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle), who conceded that this resolution, H.J. Res. 32, is solely, in
his words, and I quote, ``a political document. It has no teeth.'' No
teeth, indeed. I would suggest that this resolution offers less promise
than an ill-fitting set of dentures.
On day one of this Congress, we Democrats proposed a rule to save
Social Security first, to see that the surplus was not dissipated, that
we utilized it to preserve the future of the Social Security system.
That was rejected on day one of this Congress; and, since that time,
now entering month three of this Congress, not much progress, a few
hearings but not much progress, has been made towards strengthening and
preserving Social Security.
Instead of meaningful action, as Americans will remember in 1995 our
Republican colleagues said they wanted a revolution. We have now come
another 4 years, and they present us a resolution. I believe what we
really need is a bipartisan solution to preserve and protect and
strengthen the Social Security system.
What might that bipartisan solution, not a meaningless resolution
like we are considering today, what might it include and what might it
exclude? We have an excellent idea of that today in a new report.
One of the groups that has been working toward a solution of this
problem is the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare. They turned to a Republican economist, who did a simulation,
looking at various proposals to reject the Social Security system as we
have known it for the last many decades and substitute for it some type
of private system. This study is entitled ``Winners and Losers from
`Privatizing' Social Security.''
What this study concluded was that there are many losers and not very
many winners. In fact, the conclusion of the study is that, with these
various schemes to reject our current Social Security system, instead
of to strengthen and preserve it, that every person alive today, in
these United States or anywhere else, who is drawing Social Security or
could draw Social Security in the future, every person will lose under
the various schemes to privatize fully or partially the Social Security
system instead of to strengthen and preserve it.
The only people who might stand to gain, we were told in this
simulation, which fortunately is just that, a simulation instead of an
experiment on the American people as some have advanced, but the only
people who would gain are a few high-income males to be born somewhere
20 or 30 years from now after the full transition costs to a private
system are effected.
So with that kind of information now available, it is time to reject
ideology and focus on real, meaningful changes in this system that will
strengthen and preserve it.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an important study with important
findings. There has been so much held out about how if we had a
revolution in Social Security and we rejected the system as we have
known it for the last many decades, that everybody would be the winner.
But when one looks at the facts, the winners just are not there.
Everyone loses if we reject this system and substitute the kind of
revolutionary system that some of these Washington think-tank
ideologues have been advancing. So I hope we will come together behind
some of the proposals the President has advanced to strengthen and
preserve Social Security in a truly bipartisan manner.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just comment on the comments of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) with respect to what the
Subcommittee on Social Security has been doing and what the full
Committee on Ways and Means has been doing since the beginning of this
Congress.
We have already had more hearings on Social Security than we did on
welfare reform, and that is just from the beginning of this year, than
we had in drafting the welfare reform bill.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a valuable member of the
Subcommittee on Social Security, knows this well. He has attended these
hearings, and he has been very attentive in these hearings, so I would
not want anyone listening to this proceeding to in any way think that
Congress has been sitting on its hands. It has not. There will be
proposals out there, and these proposals will be in the form of draft
legislation.
I would hope and I intend to, as the subcommittee chairman, to be
part of a majority bill that will be put in place and hopefully will
become the framework for moving forward on a bipartisan solution.
I would also invite the minority to put forth their bill. I would
also invite the President to put forth his bill. They will be received
with great courtesy and cooperation, and I would pledge hearings on any
such bills that would come before my subcommittee that have the backing
of the minority party or the White House.
I believe this is very important. That is how strongly I feel about a
bipartisan solution and a bipartisan effort. The Committee on Ways and
Means is working very, very hard. The system is in crisis and we do
need to find a solution, because we can avoid this crisis very early
and be sure that the Social Security system is in place and continues
to be a very safe system for all Americans, both of this generation and
generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on the comments of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
First of all, the gentleman is correct. We have had four full
committee hearings and we have had three, I believe, subcommittee
hearings. But I have to say, and I think most people would confirm my
comments, and I have sat through almost all of the hearings except
maybe 3 hours of the 20 hours of hearings, and most of the purposes of
these hearings and most of the people talking at these hearings have
been basically just trashing the President's proposal.
The Republicans asked that the President come up with his proposal
last year. The President has come up with an outline that everyone
understands. There is no complexity to it. We have just been spending
all our time just trashing the President. We have spent very little
time on real substance.
And I think what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) was referring
to is a comprehensive study that actually was done by John Mueller.
John Mueller, for those who were here in the 1980s, was the economist
for the Republican Conference under the leadership of then Jack Kemp;
and Mr. Mueller came in with the idea of doing this study with a bias
actually toward private accounts.
What basically happened is that he completed the study and now he
believes that private accounts would
[[Page 3267]]
really do bad damage. This was commissioned, by the way, by Martha
McSteen, who happened to be the administrator for the Social Security
Administration in 1983 to 1986, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.
So we had two Reagan people, one Reagan and one Jack Kemp, and they
basically have said private accounts are the wrong way to go. It is
easy to figure out why. There is $8 trillion of unfunded liability, $8
trillion of unfunded liability. If we go with private accounts, we have
those people living today in the workforce and paying for the
retirement of their parents or grandparents.
{time} 1430
That means they are going to be paying twice the amount for half the
benefit. That is the real problem with private accounts. You can talk
about private accounts all you want, but the real person that is going
to benefit from private accounts will be born 25 years from now in the
year 2025, and he will be a single male. Every other economic group
will lose. The biggest losers, believe it or not, are going to be
women. Because women live longer than men, they are going to have to
set up an annuity, they will get less even though they may have made
the same amount in the workforce.
In addition, we all know that women make about 70 percent of what men
make normally in the workforce. So they are going to start off way
behind, anyway. This is going to do damage to Democratic women,
Republican women, conservative women and liberal women.
This is not an issue of ideology. It is a question of getting the
facts and making sure we know the facts before we move. I am afraid all
those hearings and everything we have been doing over the last 2 months
have been basically to create a partisan division against the
President's plan rather than to do anything really substantive and
trying to understand this issue. But I do appreciate what the gentleman
has done. He has come up with this resolution. I think, as the previous
speaker said, resolutions really do not mean much. On the other hand, I
guess we might as well do something since we are not doing much else.
We are going to be out at 3 o'clock today so we might as well use some
of that time at least pretending like we are doing something
significant, but we all know that this resolution will not advance the
cause of reforming the Social Security system one second.
As a result of that, we will pass it with a unanimous vote, but let
us not kid ourselves. We have got to come up with a proposal. The
President has. I like the President's proposal. Let us hear from the
Republicans and let us see how they deal with an $8 trillion transition
cost if they want to go to private accounts and protect women and
minorities and middle-income people and suburban people at the same
time. You will not be able to do it. I hope you try but you will not be
able to do it. Instead what we should be doing is picking up the
President's plan, moving forward with it and at least solving this
problem for the next 55 years.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
would like to respond to the gentleman from California with regard to
the remarks that he has made. We have heard the minority trash a
proposal which has been characterized as a Republican proposal which
has not been made as yet. There is no Republican proposal out there. We
have had hearings, we have had statements with regard to the direction
we should go, but there has not been a concrete proposal laid upon the
table.
By contrast, I think it is interesting to note that on this side not
one single speaker has gotten up and trashed the President's proposal.
The President's proposal is out there. I am treating it with great
courtesy. I want to encourage the President and his staff and the
Treasury Department and all those connected with the Social Security
system to come forward with a concrete proposal in writing that we can
receive. So I am hopeful yet that we do receive a formal proposal from
the President.
The purpose of this resolution is to bring us together, to show that
there is some unity in this House between Democrats and Republicans. I
am not going to spoil the day by going out and trying to retaliate and
bring about argument or try to accent what separates us, because this
resolution is what brings us together.
Both sides have said that we are going to preserve the Social
Security system. Both sides have said that we are not going to raise
payroll taxes. Both sides have said that we are not going to cut
benefits. When you have that as a perimeter, there is not too many
other places you can go except to look at the investment of the system
itself. That is where we are going to concentrate. That is where we are
going to have to move forward.
This resolution is a good step forward, albeit a single step forward,
but it is a good step forward in trying to show that there is unity in
this House, that we do have unity of purpose and that we are going to
draw together.
I will be actually out there soliciting help from the minority side
in trying to craft this legislation to see that we can come up with
something that is quite meaningful. This task is far too important than
to bicker in a partisan manner. This is the most important item to come
before this Congress either this year or next year. It would be a
terrible tragedy if we were to back away from this point of history. We
have a surplus. We have divided government. Both of those are very
important. Because we need the divided government to be sure it is
bipartisan, and we need the surplus to be sure that we save Social
Security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the resolution.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 32, which
expresses Congress' desire to strengthen and protect Social Security.
Saving Social Security must be our top priority as we prepare America
for the next century.
Without fundamental changes in the Social Security program, either
massive tax increases or a reduction in benefits will be required or
the program will reach financial crisis by 2013. This is of special
concern for most women, who have a vital interest in Social Security.
The fact is, on average, women live longer than men, earn less, and are
more likely to be dependent on Social Security for most or all of their
retirement income.
Mr. Speaker, having paid into Social Security myself for over forty
years, I will never support hasty reforms that threaten the financial
futures of those who have committed a lifetime of earnings to the
system. As a father and a grandfather, I will insist that our reforms
provide more choices for those now entering the workforce. It is time
we take action to ensure this program will be available to our children
and grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 32 to ensure a
stable future for Social Security.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 32,
the ``Social Security Guarantee Initiative.'' As we all know, one of
the most important questions facing Congress today is how best to
preserve Social Security and Medicare for this and future generations.
We need to ensure that benefits are not cut for today's Social Security
recipients, while at the same time guaranteeing that our children and
grandchildren will have the piece of mind that Social Security brings.
Before Social Security was enacted in 1935, retirement meant
financial insecurity and poverty for many seniors. This program,
however, has dramatically changed that and has allowed millions of
Americans to enjoy their later years with greater tranquility and less
worry. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it best when, upon
signing the Social Security Act, he stated that ``[t]he Social Security
Act was primarily designed to provide the average worker with some
assurance that when cycles of unemployment come or when his work days
are over, he will have enough money to live decently.''
It is imperative that Congress and the President work together in a
bipartisan manner to achieve this goal. Arguably the most successful
domestic government program in world history, it is our duty to do
everything in our power to ensure its existence for years to come. I
urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. And even more
importantly, I urge my colleagues to put partisan differences
[[Page 3268]]
aside, and to take concrete actions beyond this resolution, to
strengthen the Social Security system.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that
focuses on the need to restore our Social Security program in a fair
manner for all Americans.
With the looming prospect that its funds will be depleted by 2032,
the issue of ensuring the solvency of Social Security needs to be
addressed. But there are a number of priorities we must keep in mind as
the debate on reforming Social Security begins to take form.
First, it is important that any reform to Social Security guarantees
equal benefits to all Americans, including women and minorities.
We also need to ensure that cost-of-living adjustments and a
continuous benefit safety net are provided for all Social Security
recipients.
Most importantly, we want to do all we can to save Social Security
without raising taxes. Americans are already over-burdened by high
taxes, and it is our duty to ensure that more of their money stays in
their pockets. We owe it to the American people to provide them with a
fair plan that saves Social Security for generations to come without
increasing their tax burden.
I am proud to support this initiative and want to thank the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for introducing this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 32, as
amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. 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.
Pursuant to clause 8(c) of rule XX, this 15-minute vote will be
followed by a 5-minute vote on H.R. 609.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 1, not voting, 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 29]
YEAS--416
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
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
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
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
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastert
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
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)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
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
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
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
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 (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--17
Berman
Bilbray
Buyer
Callahan
Cannon
Capps
Cooksey
Dunn
Evans
Everett
Granger
Hansen
Hilliard
Hunter
McCollum
Rogers
Thompson (CA)
{time} 1455
So the joint resolution, as amended, was passed.
The title of the joint resolution was amended so as to read: ``Joint
resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President and
the Congress should join in undertaking the Social Security Guarantee
Initiative to strengthen the Social Security program and protect the
retirement income security of all Americans for the 21st century.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
EXPORT APPLE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 609.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Condit) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 609, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 0, not voting 17, as follows:
[[Page 3269]]
[Roll No. 30]
YEAS--416
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
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
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
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
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
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
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)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
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
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
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
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
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
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Berman
Buyer
Callahan
Cannon
Capps
Dunn
Evans
Everett
Granger
Hilliard
Hunter
McCollum
McKinney
Rogers
Rush
Spence
Watkins
{time} 1505
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 603,
CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE ``DEATH ON
THE HIGH SEAS ACT'' TO AVIATION INCIDENTS
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-37) on the resolution (H. Res. 85)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 603) to amend title 49,
United States Code, to clarify the application of the Act popularly
known as the ``Death on the High Seas Act'' to aviation incidents,
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 661,
CONDITIONALLY PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-38) on the resolution (H. Res. 86)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 661) to direct the
Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the commercial operation of
supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply with stage 3
noise levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft noise
regulations, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
____________________
ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING AND JOINT COMMITTEE
OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the
resolution (H. Res. 87) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I will not
object, but I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for
the purpose of explaining the resolution.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is my pleasure to announce that the Committee on House
Administration now has its full complement of members on both sides of
the aisle, and this resolution constitutes the Joint Committee of
Congress on the Library, consisting of the chairman and ranking member,
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Davis); and the Joint Committee on Printing, the
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the ranking member,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ney), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
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. 87
Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are
hereby, elected to the
[[Page 3270]]
following joint committees of Congress, to serve with the
chairman of the Committee on House Administration:
Joint Committee of Congress on the Library: Mr. Boehner,
Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Davis of Florida.
Joint Committee on Printing: Mr. Boehner, Mr. Ney, Mr.
Hoyer, and Mr. Fattah.
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. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 88) and ask
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 88
Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is
hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the
House of Representatives:
Committee on Education and the Workforce: Mr. Isakson.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr.
Isakson.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
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.
____________________
CONDEMNING THE CUBAN DICTATORSHIP'S CRACKDOWN ON THE INTERNAL
OPPOSITION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks the Cuban dictatorship
has carried out a brutal crackdown of the brave internal opposition and
independent press, taking Cuba's four best known internal opponents,
Felix Bonne Carcasses, Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, Vladimiro Roca
Antunez, and Rene Gomez Manzano, to trial on trumped-up charges, and
arresting scores of other peaceful opponents without cause or
justification.
The internal opposition in Cuba is working intensely and valiantly to
draw international attention to Cuba's deplorable human rights
situation, and continues to strengthen and grow, despite the Stalinist
repression, in its opposition to the Castro dictatorship.
At this time of extraordinary repression, the internal opposition
requires and deserves the firm and unwavering support and solidarity of
the international community. The Cuban dictatorships repressive
crackdown against the brave internal opposition and the independent
press must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
{time} 1515
The internal opposition and independent press of Cuba have our
profound admiration and firm solidarity.
We must demand of the Cuban dictatorship the release of all political
prisoners, the legalization of all political parties, labor unions and
the press, and the scheduling of free and fair internationally
supervised elections.
Mr. Speaker, I call on the government of Spain, of Prime Minister
Aznar, to cancel the announced trip to Castro's Cuba of the King of
Spain; and I call upon the member states of the Ibero-American summit
to boycott the upcoming meeting that has been, incredibly, scheduled
for November in the capital of the Cuban dictatorship.
Martin Luther King rightfully declared that an injustice anywhere is
an affront to injustice everywhere. Going to Cuba to shake the Cuban
tyrant's hand would be an ultimately immoral act. Now, more than ever,
it is incumbent upon the entire international community to demonstrate
firm solidarity with the oppressed people of Cuba and with the brave
internal opposition.
According to press reports from Cuba, the following dissidents and
journalists have been arrested by the Cuban dictatorship in the last
few days:
Efren Martinez Pulgaron, Ana Maria Ortega Jimenez, Marisela Pompa,
Angel Polanco, Odilia Collazo, Arnaldo Ramos, Lazaro Rodriguez, Jose
Orlando Gonzalez Bridon, Lazaro Cala, Felix Perera, Oswaldo Paya
Sardinas, Ofelia Nardo Cruz, Regis Iglesias, Angel Moya Acosta, Miriam
Cantillo, Benigno Torralba, Ramon Alfonso William, Gisela Concepcion
Bolanos, Marvin Hernandez Monzon, Jesus David Martinez Garcia, Julian
Martinez Baez, Juan Francisco Monzon Oviedo, Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina,
Ivan Hernandez Carrillo, Felix Navarro Rodriguez, Pedro H. Rojas,
Leonel Morejon Almagro, Reinaldo Cosano Allen, Jesus Llanes Pelletier,
Maria Menendez Villar, Oscar Elias Biscet, Rolando Munoz Yyobre, Miriam
Cantillo, Omar Rodriguez Saludos, Diosdado Gonzalez Marrero, Ileana
Somiellan Fleitas, Nanci Sotolongo, Odalys Curbelo, Juan Antonio
Sanchez, Hector Cruz, Israel Bayon, Raul Rivero and Orlando Bordon.
There are certainly many others who have been arrested but who we
have not been able to find out about as of yet.
Mr. Speaker, our admiration, our support, and our prayers go out to
all of these brave Cuban patriots and to all of the suffering and
oppressed Cuban people.
____________________
TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is a special day, particularly
in Texas, because in Texas March 2 is Texas Independence Day. In 1836,
163 years ago today, the Republic of Texas was born. As I left Houston
this morning, spring is coming to Texas. The bluebonnets are blooming,
and we are actually seeing a lot of changes, and that is what has
happened in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, let me set the stage for what happened 163 years ago. On
March 1, 1836, 54 delegates representing settlements across Texas
gathered for the Texas Convention of 1836 in a small farm village at
Washington-on-the-Brazos.
From the beginning, it was an event marked by haste and urgency
because Santa Anna's forces were closing in on the defenders of the
Alamo. Within days it would fall, setting off a chain reaction of
defeats for the small Texas Army, which would nevertheless emerge
victorious at the battle of San Jacinto 6 weeks later on April 21.
March 2 is when the delegates in Washington-on-the-Brazos actually drew
up the Constitution and declared independence.
Mr. Speaker, what were these brave Texans fighting for? Up to this
point, it was simply to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824, which
had been suspended by Santa Anna.
On the night of March 1, a group of five men stayed up late into the
night drafting the document that would be approved the next day by the
full convention, a document that echoes the lines of its American
counterpart, the Texas Declaration of Independence.
It started off in much the same way, with the words, ``When a
government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the
people.'' It spoke of the numerous injustices inflicted upon the
settlers of the state of Coahuila y Tejas: the elimination of the
state's legislative body, the denial of religious freedom, the
elimination of the civil justice system, and the confiscation of
firearms being the most intolerable, particularly in Texas.
Finally, it ended with the declaration that, because of the injustice
of Santa Anna's tyrannical government, Texans were severing their
connection with the Mexican nation and declaring themselves ``a free,
sovereign, and independent republic . . . fully invested with all the
rights and attributes'' that belong to independent nations; and a
declaration that they ``fearlessly and confidently'' committed their
decision
[[Page 3271]]
to ``the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations.''
Over the next 2 weeks, a constitution was drafted and an interim
government was formed, despite daily reports from the front detailing
the collapse of the Alamo and subsequent advance of the Mexican Army
through Texas. On March 17, 1836, the government was forced to flee
Washington-on-the-Brazos on the news of the advance of General Santa
Anna.
Just over a month later, however, independence would be secured in
the form of a victory over that same army by Sam Houston, a delegate at
the very convention, and his courageous fighters at the battle of San
Jacinto.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind folks from Tennessee that Sam Houston
served in this Congress from the State of Tennessee. I have at times
kidded my friends from Tennessee saying, ``The best of Tennessee
immigrated to Texas in the 1830s.''
From that point on, Texas was firmly established in the community of
nations; and for 10 years she stood and remained an independent nation,
until President James K. Polk signed the treaty admitting Texas to the
United States in 1845.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Congress and the whole country will join us
today on March 2 in a day that in Texas we celebrate, our
schoolchildren celebrate, Texas Independence Day.
____________________
GOOD EDUCATION FOR OUR CHILDREN WILL ENSURE AMERICA'S FUTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ran for Congress, and I am here today,
because I believe that our children's education must be the number one
priority in this country. We must prepare all of our children for the
high-skill, high-wage jobs that will ensure America's leadership in the
world marketplace and, at the same time prevent dependency on welfare
here at home.
Public education is the backbone of our country. It is why we are a
great Nation. Public education must be available to all, and it must be
the best in the world. Public education does not discriminate; and it
must be strengthened, not weakened.
This Congress, we have an opportunity that comes along only once
every 5 years, and that is the opportunity to review and update the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA.
ESEA is best known for Title I, the education for the disadvantaged.
ESEA is known for the dollars it sends to schools. Title I is important
because it helps disadvantaged children achieve along with their more
fortunate peers, and it helps poor and impacted schools and school
districts keep up with the more advantaged schools and school districts
in this Nation.
Title I must be supported; and, as well, we must ensure that every
child gets individual attention in the early grades to build a solid
foundation for future learning. We can do this by making the
administration's initiative to reduce class size permanent. This
initiative helps school districts recruit, hire, and train enough
qualified teachers to reduce class size to an average of 18 in grades 1
through 3.
Current research findings prove what parents and teachers have known
for years: Kids who are in smaller class sizes learn better, especially
in the lower grades. Our schools need 100,000 new, well-trained
teachers.
We also know how hard it is for children even in small classes to
learn in trailers or in old school buildings that are crumbling around
them. I support the President's proposal to make it easier for school
districts to fund needed schools and to build new ones by providing
interest rate subsidies for school construction bonds over the next 2
years. Is it not time to show all of our children that their school is
as important as a shopping mall or as a prison?
While I certainly support the current emphasis on ending social
promotions, ESEA is also the place to assist all schools in preventing
students from failing in the first place. Title XI of ESEA lets school
districts spend up to 5 percent of their Federal education funds on
coordinated services, services that will bring schools and their local
communities together to make sure that, every day, every student comes
to school ready to learn. Services such as health care, before and
after school care, and tutoring ensure that no child is doomed to fail
before they even enter the classroom.
There are wonderful examples all around the Nation of schools and
communities working together to lift children and their families out of
an endless cycle of failure and into a future of success.
Students who are ready to learn need well-trained teachers who are
experts in their subjects. They need a challenging curriculum and up-
to-date technology to prepare them for the sophisticated world we live
in. Every student, regardless of family income, race or gender must
have access to the most modern technological education available.
In addition, teachers as well as students must have mentors; and they
must have support for learning to use technology so that they will be
comfortable and knowledgeable in a technological environment.
As a member of both the Committee on Education and the Workforce and
the Committee on Science, I am excited to have this significant
opportunity to make positive changes in our children's education; to
remove any economic or gender gap in science, math and technology; to
ensure small classes with well-trained teachers; to provide funding for
modern, safe schools; and to give all students a world-class education.
Mr. Speaker, children are only 25 percent of our population, but they
are 100 percent of our future. A sound public school system is how we
protect that future. A good education for all of our children will
ensure America's future.
____________________
CONGRESS MUST HELP THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN SUDAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the issue of Sudan. But,
before I do, I want to just pay tribute to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) for taking his time and getting involved in a very
important issue with regard to slavery in Sudan.
I also want to congratulate the students at Highline Community School
in Aurora, Colorado. They have done an amazing thing with regard to
getting people who were in slavery in southern Sudan free.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in Sudan on three different occasions. The
world does not know it, but these students in Colorado know it. There
is slavery going on in Sudan, and these students are making a
tremendous effort. Because of them, 1,000 slaves have been released,
and I just want to take out this special order in tribute to them.
Mr. Speaker, for the past several months, the students of Barbara
Vogel's fourth grade class have been raising money to help free slave
children as part of the public awareness campaign called S.T.O.P.,
Slavery That Oppresses People. These young people, modern-day
abolitionists, are an inspiration to many. If my colleagues saw the CBS
Dan Rather show, one of the youngsters I believe called himself a
modern-day abolitionist. If only the Congress could follow their lead
or if the administration could follow their lead.
Almost 2 million people have died, 2 million have died in Sudan in
the past 15 years. More have died in Sudan than have died in Somalia,
in Kosovo, in Rwanda and in Bosnia combined. The most recent statistics
available put the number dead at 1.8 million, but that does not cover
the 200,000 who have died from the famines this past summer.
Mr. Speaker, millions of people are starving in southern Sudan, kept
alive only by the brave efforts of international humanitarian
organizations like World Vision, Save the Children,
[[Page 3272]]
Catholic Relief, UNICEF, and others. Millions are being displaced. An
entire generation has been lost, and another generation is ready to be
lost.
{time} 1530
The word ``genocide'' is now used with regard to what is taking place
in Sudan. In the Numba Mountains, the Christians and Muslims are being
persecuted. The Sudanese government are persecuting these people
because of their faith. The government planes use high-altitude
bombings to demolish civilian targets like hospitals and terrorize the
population.
We know that women and children from Southern Sudan are being sold
into slavery; and today, March 2, 1999, Sudanese women and children are
being bought and sold as we sit and stand here today. They are
kidnapped by slave raiders who sweep into the destabilized regions
following the government attacks. They capture the women and children
and then they take them off for slavery.
I want to commend my colleagues' attention to this excellent booklet
which hopefully will be sent to every Congressional office from the
U.S. Committee For Refugees. Tomorrow they will announce a nationwide
public awareness campaign about Sudan. I urge the Members of this body
to get a copy of this booklet.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his coming here quickly, getting started on
a very powerful, very important issue. This may be the major human
rights issue of the world. Two million people have died. Also, the
students of Highline School are trying to help to save one life at a
time by raising money to free women and children from the trading
block.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I received letters from the youngsters which
I would like to put in the Congressional Record.
Nicole Limino said to me, ``Dear Congressman Wolf, it makes me feel
so sad that people just like me are being treated like animals. This
needs to be stopped. Someone needs to take a stand. Please help
eradicate slavery by writing the government and telling them something
needs to be done.''
Doni Tarplus said, ``Will you please help us abolish slavery? The
President isn't helping even when he promised to make the world a
better place.''
A boy who identified himself as Melvin said, ``I'm Melvin. I'm
demanding you ask people if they want to help. The United Nations isn't
doing anything about slavery in Sudan. I was broken-hearted when I
found that 409 people were found and brought from slavery.''
David Walker said, ``You are a congressman so you can help. Millions
of lives are in danger and you can get the government to help. Slavery
is going on and we need to stop it.''
Then there are many other letters which I would like to put in the
Congressional Record.
In closing, slavery is a problem. Starvation is a problem. The United
States can do more to help. We can appoint a special envoy. He can go
back and tell the students from Highline Community School that the
Clinton administration has a special envoy. They appointed an envoy,
Senator Mitchell, who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing people
together in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland.
Let us appoint a Sam Nunn, a Senator Nunn to be the special envoy to
bring peace in this region and stop the slavery, stop the suffering,
stop the agony and the pain.
The students from the area of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo), from Highline Community School, are, frankly, I hate to say
this, they are doing more than the Congress is doing, both parties,
Republican and Democratic Party, they are doing more than both parties.
Lastly, they are doing much more, much more than the Clinton
administration is doing.
I just hope that their effort as a witness by what they are doing
will sensitize this administration whereby President Clinton, within
the next week or so, will appoint a special envoy who will go to Sudan
and go back and forth and mediate between the warring parties whereby
these people will know that they can have a future for their children
and grandchildren, and slavery will stop, and people will not be
persecuted because they happen to accept Christ and they happen to be
Christians, because of their faith.
Mr. Speaker, the letters that I referred to are as follows:
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 22, 1999.
Dear Congressman Wolf: I know you are also a freedom
fighter and this is one reason we need you! We need your
strong caring voice to help us end slavery in Sudan. Please
hear the cry for freedom that these beautiful, young,
Americans put to their government! The media is giving a lot
of attention to these young voices can you help us too?
In Freedom,
Barb Vogel.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: At the beginning of the year I
found out that slavery was still going on. I also found out
that the class before us had started a campaign called
S.T.O.P., S.T.O.P. stands for Slavery That Oppresses People.
It makes me feel terrible that people just like me are being
treated like animals. This needs to be stopped. Someone needs
to take a stand. Please help us eradicate slavery by writing
the government and telling them something needs to be done.
If you have any questions please call us at (303) 364-7657 or
look for information at www.anti-slavery.org.
Help Them,
Nicole Cimino.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: Slavery should not be going
on: It should be eradicated. A few weeks ago on February
fourth, 409 people were put into slavery. That makes me
really mad! I am Doni Tarplus in Barbs fourth grade class. I
am an abolitonist, an abolitionist is a person who wants to
free slaves.
Will you please help us abolish slavery? The president
isn't helping when he promised to make the world a better
place. For more information please call us at, (303) 364-7657
or try our website at www.anti-slavery.org.
Thanks,
Doni Tarplus.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: I'm Melvin and I'm demanding
you ask people if they want to help or you help because the
United Nations aren't doing anything about slavery in Sudan!
Barb's old class made S.T.O.P. but we're continuing this
campaign.
S.T.O.P. stands for Slavery That Oppresses People. I was
broken-hearted when I found out that 409 people were found
and brought into slavery. If you want to do a donation, you
can contact Christian Solidarity International, American
anti-slavery group, or visit us on the web at WWW.anti-
slavery.org.
Sincerely,
Melvin.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: You are a congressman so you
can help. Millions of lives are in danger and you can get the
government to help. Slavery is going on and we need to stop
it that is why we started a campaign called S.T.O.P. It
stands for Slavery That Oppresses People. We started this
campaign because the government won't take a stand. Please
help us eradicate slavery.
Sincerely,
David Walker.
P.S. On February 4, 1999 John Eibner gave the south of
Sudan an urgent appeal about the north attacking them but
they didn't listen so now 409 women and children are in
slavery.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Wolf: Hi! My name is Alex Persinger and I
feel like a dead hog, because on February 4, 1999, on that
day 409 people were inslaved! Please give the government
awareness about slavery. People like us work all day because
of lazy people.
Please remember the urgent appeal by John Eibner. I love to
help but I can only tell so many! People like you can make a
difference.
Love,
Alex Persinger.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: My name is Thomas Turner, an
adolescent abolitionist that is trying to eradicate slavery,
but that is not the reason I'm writing you. The reason is
because a man named John Eibner had urgently appealed the
U.N. to take a stand about the slavery issue, but they all
probably sat lazier than ever and because of that 409 people
are slaved in modern day slavery. We'll get up and take a
huge stand right now! You can contact us at www.anti-
slavery.org or 1-800-884-0719. Make a difference.
Love,
Thomas Turner.
[[Page 3273]]
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: I am an abolitionist in a
campaign called S.T.O.P. S.T.O.P. stands for Slavery That
Oppresses People. We heard a very disappointing thing about
some slaves. John Eibner, a man who works for a humanitarian
group called C.S.I sent a urgent appeal to the government
about this and that the soldiers were going to raid the
villages, but they didn't do anything. On February 4, 1999
four hundred nine innocent people were taken into a miserable
life being treated like animals. When I found out about this,
I was heartbroken to know that so many people could be taken
into bondage. The good news is that we freed 850 slaves.
Join us to eradicate and abolish slavery. Please help us by
writing to people that are important. If you have any
questions you can reach us at (303) 364-7657.
Please help us,
Lindy de Spain.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Wolf: I'm Miriam a concerned youngster in
the STOP campaign it stands for Slavery That Oppresses
People. This is a human rights campaign, we try to end
slavery. I thought slavery had been eliminated. We freed
slaves last week but Sudan was attacked and four hundred-nine
people were put into slavery it was shocking. We need your
help and spread the word that slavery exists please helps us!
The government has sat idly by, for years and years. John
Eibner works for CSI he goes to Sudan and frees slaves. He
had sent an urgent appeal that Sudan was being attacked to
the United Nations but no response, they ignored this awful
issue and they ignored this awful issue too often!
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Wolf: Hi! I am Josh Hook, an abolitionist.
I have some devastating news to tell you. A few days ago John
Eibner went to Sudan and he was told that the north was ready
to fight. So John told the U.N. but they ignored him. Then
four hundred nine people were put in slavery. Just because
the government did not do a single thing!
We started a campaign called S.T.O.P. S.T.O.P. stands for
slavery that oppresses people. Will you use your voice to
tell your fellow colleagues or contact C.S.I. or A.A.S.G.
Love,
Josh Hook.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: Hi! My name is Dong, this is
devastating news! On February 4, 1999 four hundred nine
people were put in slavery! John Eibner sent a urgent appeal
to the United Nations, but they did nothing. Right now I feel
distraught. Please help us! Please join our S.T.O.P. campaign
and help us free slaves! Women and children just like me are
now put in slavery. I demand you to help us! My heart is
frowning because this is going on, my heart is crying. I
forgot to tell you that the north attacked a village. John
Eibner warned them but they did nothing. Also S.T.O.P. stands
for Slavery That Oppresses People. Please help us abolish
slavery and please bring awareness to the world!
Sincerely,
Dong Cha.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: I'm so furious at the
government for not listening to us. Last Week 409 people were
enslaved because the government did not listen to us. Just
like you and me inslaved. Women and children are enslaved.
The bad part too is that the government ignored John Eibners
warning. He found out that the soldiers were going to raid
them. He also sent an urgent appeal to the United Nations.
P.S. We will eradicate slavery.
Love,
Joshua Fleming.
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: My name is Alphonso Terell
McDonald and I am nine years old. I am a young abolitionist
and I am writing to you because I want to tell you about what
happened just recently, four hundred-nine slaves were
captured and were brought back into slavery because the
government is sitting idly by instead of taking a stand. We
would like to know if you'd contact the United States
Government and let them know what is going on. We would be so
grateful if you did this because we want people to be aware
of this so they can help us.
The quote that is on the back of our shirts ``The greatest
sin of our time is not the few who have destroyed, but the
vast majority who have sat idly by.''
Love,
Alphonso.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: I want to tell you what just
happened, there were 409 nice, beautiful, innocent, people
put into to slavery.
I almost cried; but I realized if I'm a abolitionist, I can
put a stop to this slavery issue! This should not be
happening to these people! ``These are our people we should
stop this slavery!'' You can help us by writing letters to
the government and tell them to put a stop like all of the
abolitionist like Frederick Douglas, Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.,
Love,
Cynthia Jurango.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: Hi! My name is Heather Pedigo,
with a strong urge to fight for freedom of other people! I
want to tell you something because of the governments act of
turning their back on the issue of slavery, because of that,
on February fourth, four hundred and nine people were put
into slavery! Just think all of those scared and hurt women
and children. We are very ashamed. Please contact us at
WWW.Anti-Slavery, or or you can call us at 1-800-804-0719.
Sincerely,
Heather Pedigo.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank: Hi, My name is Christina
Manalastas. On February 4th, four hundred nine slaves went
into slavery. I'm not happy about what is going on all around
the world! It is, of course, the moral thing, when seeing a
other human being suffer, to look after them. The person
Dalai Lama had said that quote. Here is my quote, ``We care
about happiness, we care about sadness but we just want to
help.''
Sincerely,
Christina Manalastas.
P.S. Will you please join us.
____
Highline Community School,
Aurora, CO, February 17, 1999.
Dear Congressman Frank Wolf: Hi! From Barb's class. Im a
young abolitionist and a fourth grader at Highline. I am in a
group that is called S.T.O.P. S.T.O.P is Slavery That
Oppresses People. Just last week 409 people went into
slavery. The United Nations did not help! I felt so bad! I'm
going to eradicate slavery this year! As I was saying on the
fourth of February, 1999 John Eibner went to Sudan to warn
them about people coming and taking them from their homes. So
stand up and do what is right! I will not give up will you?
Will you help us stop slavery?
Love,
Stacy Caruso.
____________________
DO NOT FORGET ABOUT THE KASHMIRI PANDITS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the world witnessed an exciting event last
month when India's Prime Minister Vajpayee met with his Pakistani
counterpart, Prime Minister Sharif, to inaugurate a new bus service
between the two countries.
I applaud Prime Minister Vajpayee's courage in visiting his
neighboring country with whom relations have been tense, to put it
mildly. But amidst the celebrations about the meeting between the India
and the Pakistani prime ministers, a disturbing development from the
Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir reminds us of what is at stake in the
conflict that has hung over the subcontinent for decades.
As the New York Times reported, ``On the eve of Mr. Vajpayee's visit
to Lahore, Islamic militants, whom Indians generally believe are backed
by Pakistan, massacred 20 Hindu civilians in three places in Jammu,
part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, apparently in an attempt
to derail the peace efforts. In one case, they opened fire on a wedding
party, killing eight celebrants.'' This is from the New York Times,
February 23.
The article noted that Prime Minister Vajpayee did not publicly
address the massacres during his visit to Pakistan, perhaps
understandable in light of the positive atmosphere that the meeting of
the two prime ministers was intended to generate. But Prime Minister
Vajpayee stressed that he had warned his Pakistani counterpart that the
continued campaign of terrorism against innocent civilians in Jammu and
Kashmir is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of Kashmir frequently gets mentioned in the
geopolitical calculations over the larger India-Pakistan conflict.
There is overwhelming evidence of Pakistani covert support for the
continued terror campaign in Jammu and Kashmir. There
[[Page 3274]]
has, at the same time, been an overt Pakistani effort to
internationalize this issue by bringing the United States, or other
world powers and international organizations, into the negotiations.
The one aspect of this tragedy that frequently is overlooked is the
plight of the Hindu community of this region, the so-called Kashmiri
Pandits.
I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate my
calls for increased American and world attention to the plight of the
Kashmiri Pandits, victims of massacres and displacement, such as the
atrocity of last month.
As I have gotten to know the Kashmiri-American community and hearing
about the situation facing the Kashmiri Pandits, I have become
increasingly outraged, not only at the terrible abuses they have
suffered but at the seeming indifference of the world community.
At the same time, I am impressed by the dignity and the determination
that the Kashmiri Pandits have maintained despite these horrible
conditions. I am touched by the deep concern that the Kashmiri-
Americans feel for their brothers and sisters living in Kashmir or in
the refugee center set up in India to accommodate the Pandits driven
from their homes in the Kashmir Valley.
Recently, my colleagues in the Congressional Caucus on India and
Indian-Americans asked me to co-chair a Task Force on Kashmir. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to focus increased Congressional
attention on this issue.
Some of my colleagues and I have already been pressing these issues,
but clearly we need to give the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits greater
recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I have asked India's National Human Rights Commission to
consider declaring the Kashmiri Pandits an Internally Displaced People
and provide conditions for the safe return of the Pandit community to
the Kashmir Valley.
I have also asked the Commission to substantiate the ongoing genocide
that the Pandits are suffering. I would also encourage the Indian
government to consider officially recognizing the Kashmiri Pandit
community as a minority under Indian law to provide additional benefits
and protection.
Mr. Speaker, the Kashmiri Pandits have an ancient and a proud
culture. Their roots in the Valley run deep. Virtually the entire
population of 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits has been forced to leave their
ancestral homes and property. Today, only 2,000 Kashmiri Pandits remain
in the Valley. Threatened with violence and intimidation, they have
been turned into refugees in their own country.
Although Pakistani officials maintain that their country only
provides ``moral and political support'' for the insurgency, evidence
shows that Pakistan has been playing a direct role in arming and
training the militants who have converted the Kashmir Valley from an
earthly paradise into a living hell.
Last year, I urged Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to raise the
Kashmiri Pandit issue whenever Kashmir is discussed by the United
States and India. I have also asked the Indian government to bring up
the Pandits issue in any bilateral discussion between India and
Pakistan.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission also needs to address the
Kashmiri Pandit issue, including it in its periodic reports on Kashmir,
as well as through the Commission Subcommittee on Minorities. I will
also continue urging action by UNICEF to provide educational grants to
benefit the Kashmiri Pandit children and the World Health Organization
support to improve health and sanitation.
Mr. Speaker, lastly, in the great international debate over arms
control and security issues, it is sometimes all too easy to overlook
the so-called small problem of one persecuted ethnic group. I just hope
that the United States and India, as the world's two largest
democracies, will show determination to finally address this
humanitarian catastrophe that the Kashmiri Pandits are facing in an
effective and humane way.
____________________
PROMISES MADE AND PROMISES KEPT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, we talked about promises that
were made and promises that we needed to keep. We talked specifically
about the budget. It is hard to remember, but just 4 years ago, the
deficit was nearing $300 billion. The debt was skyrocketing. What did
that mean to Americans? That meant that interest rates on mortgages, on
cars, on college loans were soaring through the roof. In fact, it
looked like there was no end in sight to deficit after deficit after
deficit.
So we stepped up to the challenge. We presented the first plan to
balance America's budget in a generation. We heard the President. We
heard the Vice President. We heard many Members on the left. We heard
the media talking about how balancing the budget under our plan in 7
years would destroy the economy. In fact, that is what the President
said.
Well, we did not listen to the naysayers. We fought. We passed our
plan. The President still objected. In fact, that fall, he vetoed nine
bills, shut down the Federal Government and, as only the President can
do, blamed it on us.
Well, we kept the fight alive. Finally, in 1997, amid troubling
reports that if the President did nothing the budget would balance
itself, he decided to come to the table and sign the plan that would
balance our budget for the first time in a generation.
We listened to Alan Greenspan in 1995. Greenspan said, in 1995, if we
followed the Republican plan, the John Kasich plan to balance the
budget, we would see unprecedented growth in our time. We would see
college loans and interest rates go down. We would see mortgages
interest rates going down. We would see economic explosion. Well, we
kept our word. We kept the fight alive. Finally, the President came to
the table. We signed the plan, and the economy has prospered because of
it.
Now, 2 years later, we are again faced with a decision. Do we follow
political expediency? Do we follow the easy route that was followed by
the Democratic Chamber in this House for 40 years? Do we play the game
the way they used to play the game? Or do we keep our word on budgetary
issues?
We laid out budget caps in 1997. We said, this is how we are going to
run our Federal Government for the next 5 years. It was very simple.
The caps were laid out. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said, this
is the way we need to go. Well, I agreed with him then, and I agree
with him now.
We have to continue remaining fiscally disciplined. If we do that, we
will not only see the economy continue to explode, we will not only
continue to see interest rates going down, we will see something else
happen that has not happened in Washington for a long time. We will see
a group of leaders who are truly respected across the country for
keeping their word.
Because, in the end, this is not about a deficit. This is not about
budgetary issues. This is about whether our elected leaders in
Washington, D.C., say what they mean and mean what they say. Promises
made, promises kept. It made sense in 1995, and it makes sense in 1999.
____________________
SUDAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, last week, we had Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright in front of the Committee on International Relations
delivering an address detailing activities of the Department of State
over the last year, identifying all of the hot spots in the world where
American interests were at stake, identifying what the United States of
America was doing about them.
It was intriguing, Mr. Speaker, because, in over half an hour of a
normal presentation and certainly maybe 20 or 30 pages of written
presentation that discussed in every way all of the issues
[[Page 3275]]
that we could possibly confront in foreign policy position, there was
one that was conspicuous for its absence, one spot in the world that
was never mentioned, one nation that was never brought to the attention
of the Committee on International Relations or, as a matter of fact, it
has not been brought to the attention of this Nation by this
administration, and that is the nation of Sudan.
There, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said so eloquently a
little bit ago, in the last 15 years, over 2 million people have died
in that civil war. That is more than have died in Somalia, Bosnia,
Kosovo, and Rwanda combined. Yet, in the face of this tragedy, what we
have seen has been a lackluster attempt on the part of this
administration to deal with it.
Mr. Speaker, I was asked by a teacher at Highline Community School,
which is in the Cherry Creek School District in my District, a class
again to which my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, referred, I
was asked by her to deliver a message to the Secretary of State; and I
did.
The message was in the form of a question from Ms. Vogel, the teacher
of this class, this fourth and fifth grade class, to the Secretary of
State; and it said essentially this, ``Why is it that you, the
government of our own country, and members of the world community, have
decided to turn a blind eye to the tortured land of the Sudan?''
{time} 1545
And I communicated that concern to the Secretary and I got a
response, a written response, from someone in her office. I delivered
that response yesterday to the school in my district. It was one of the
most incredible experiences of the time I have spent in public life; to
look at these children and this teacher, who have committed and
dedicated themselves to the ominous task of raising money to free human
beings that have been dragged into slavery in a country all the way
around the world.
This class read about this situation over a year ago and became so
concerned that they organized a group that is now worldwide. They call
it STOP, Slavery That Oppresses People. It has raised over $100,000.
This 4th grade class in Highline Community School has raised $100,000
and purchased the freedom of over 1,000 individuals in the Sudan. Mr.
Speaker, in the entire world we have been able to muster enough support
to purchase the freedom the a total of 5,000, yet 1,000 come from this
one classroom, this one elementary school. It is really quite
extraordinary, and it was an extraordinary day yesterday.
I will enter them into the Record, but I want to read a couple of the
cards I received yesterday. Each student wrote a personal card, a
personal message to me, and some of them are really quite moving. I
will not go through them all, but just some of them. And, remember,
these are, again, 5th graders.
``Our hearts are noble, so we use the noble heart to do good for
others.'' By Dong Cho.
``Dear Congressman: Hi, I'm Christina Manalostas. We bring love and
courage from our life, and give it to others in sadness.''
``God must have put us here on earth for a reason. That reason was
not to put people in slavery or to separate races. He put us here to
live free, to have freedom. He just wanted to give everyone an
opportunity for everything. Love, Charles.''
``There is nothing worse than seeing a person suffer for what they
believe in.'' Deven Eastman.
I can go on and on like that, Mr. Speaker, but I will not. I will
enter them into the Congressional Record.
I will tell my colleagues that what these children have done and what
they are continuing to do far surpasses the efforts that the whole
government of the United States has put forward to date, and I simply
want to commend them and thank them from the bottom of my heart for
such an inspirational day as I spent yesterday.
The personal messages referred to above are as follows:
I thank God for using these children to remind me of the
true spirit of giving! We have love for all people in the
world!
Barb Vogel.
____
``Caring is living the meaning of life.''--Richard Lucas,
Age 13, Upper Arlington, OH.
____
If we can eradicate slavery then the world will be a better
place.
Love,
Cynthia Jarango.
____
``Maybe if we looked deep inside ourselves we would find
the roots of today's problems and also the solutions. Man
creates problems through his temptation; maybe he could solve
them through caring.''--Alicia Hartman, Age 17, Northeast,
PA.
____
A lot of beautiful souls are in slavery and it needs to
stop.
Kristin Young.
____
``A nation with citizens who care and look out for each
other is a great nation; it will not fall apart.''--Dwain
Simmons, Age 14, Houston, TX.
____
Dear Congressman Dan: Thank you for coming to our class.
Also, thank you for supporting our campaign. I am an
abolitionist and my name is Le Shai.
Sincerely,
Le Shai.
____
When you put your mind to something, you can achieve
anything.
Joshua Fleming.
____
If we didn't eradicate slavery how would other people be
free?
Sincerely,
David Walker.
____
Power is in people! Don't be lazy take action to help
others.
Love,
Alex J. Persinger.
____
Even though Frederick Douglass is dead, I still believe
that his spirit lives in every abolitionist in the world.
Melvin Harmon.
____
The greatest power of our time is love for all people!
Love,
Thomas Turner.
____
Unless the world is perfect, without any problems, we need
to take a stand and help others.
Lindy deSpain.
____
The world needs the caring majority.
Love,
Alphonso McDonald.
____
Dear Congressman: I would like to thank you for joining our
campaign. We appreciate your work.
Love,
James Coleman.
____
Slavery is wrong, and someone needs to take a stand. Adults
are not doing enough, so kids are doing something more.
Nicole Cimino.
____
We can't have just a little group of abolitionists we need
a large group.
Love,
Josh Hook.
____
There is a sin, from the past, it is slavery and kids are
doing something about it!
Love,
Miriam Moreno.
____
God made us different, because He knew that we would be
beautiful!
Stacy Caruso.
____
Freedom is one of the world's greatest treasures. What has
happened to it?
Doni Taikalus.
____
Our hearts are noble, so use the noble heart to do good for
others.
Dong Cho.
____
Dear Congressman: Hi, I'm Christina Manalastas. We bring
love and courage from our life, and give it to others in
sadness.
Sincerely,
Christina Manalastas.
____
God must have put us here on earth for a reason. That
reason was not to put people in slavery, or to separate
races. He put us here to live free, to have freedom. He just
wanted to give everyone an opportunity for everything.
Love,
Charles.
____
There is nothing worse than seeing a person suffer for what
they believe in.
Keven Eastman.
____________________
CUBA REMAINS A STALINIST STATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page 3276]]
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the past few weeks the Castro
dictatorship has initiated an all-out crackdown on the internal
opposition and the independent press, who day after day fight for
freedom, for democracy and for human rights in Cuba.
Yesterday, under strict secrecy, four of Cuba's most prominent
dissidents, Felix Bonne, Marta Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca and Rene
Gomez Manzano were put on trial after spending almost 600 days in
prison with no charges filed against them.
The crime committed by these four freedom-loving individuals:
Drafting a document that criticizes the Cuban communist regime's
repressive policies. And it was entitled ``The Homeland Belongs to All
of Us.'' This document called for the establishment of democracy in
Cuba and the holding of free elections on the island. The dissidents
now face up to 5 years in prison and more on these trumped-up charges.
It has been reported that dozens of independent journalists and other
dissidents were summarily rounded up this past weekend on the eve of
the trial. The purpose of this massive wave of arrests was to assure
that opponents of the regime did not tell the international community
of the Roman circus that the dictatorship dares to call a fair and a
just trial.
Despite the strengthening totalitarian nature of the Castro regime,
the internal opposition in Cuba continues to work tirelessly to call to
the attention of the world the plight of the Cuban people. In response
to the valiant efforts of the Cuban internal opposition, merely 2 weeks
ago Fidel Castro imposed yet a new law on the island that punishes up
to 15 and more years in jail any Cuban who disseminates what the regime
considers counterrevolutionary information.
Leading human rights organizations around the world have noted the
intensification of human rights abuses on the island of Cuba. Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, and the recently released U.S. State Department Human
Rights Report all concur that the Cuban regime continues to
systematically violate the fundamental civil and political rights of
all of its citizens.
Cuba today remains the Stalinist state that it has been for 40 years
under Fidel Castro. The rights of freedom of expression, freedom of
association, freedom of religion, and all of the other rights that free
men and women enjoy are denied to the Cuban people. The latest
crackdown is but the most recent example of this four-decade old
nightmare that has engulfed the island.
Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress must continue to raise our
voice in support of the freedom fighters in Cuba who day in and day out
put their lives on the line to create a Democratic opening on the
island.
Last year, during his visit to Cuba, Pope John Paul II called on the
Castro dictatorship to open up Cuba to the world. A year after the
Pontiff's visit, Castro has not even opened Cuba up to its own people.
On the contrary, the regime continues to tighten the noose of
repression around the necks of the people of the island.
The people of Cuba need the solidarity of the United States and all
the nations of the world. Let us not turn our backs on them at this
critical time.
This week my congressional colleagues and I will be submitting a
resolution which will detail facts on the Castro regime and on the
international community. We call upon the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights in Geneva to help the Cuban people, because this provides
a forum for discussing the human rights situation throughout the world,
for condemning abuses and gross violations of these liberties, and for
establishing an international mechanism to express support for the
protection and defense of these inherent natural rights.
The actions taken by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
establishes a precedence for a further course of action, and it sends a
message to the international community that the protection and
promotion of human rights is indeed still a priority for all of us. The
universal declaration of human rights guides global human rights policy
and it asserts that all human beings are born free and should live in
dignity with rights.
Religious freedom in Cuba is severely restrained, and we have clergy
and lay people who are suffering sustained repression by the Cuban
state security apparatus.
The government of Cuba continues to violate the rights of the child
as well by engaging in child labor and in child prostitution. It
routinely restricts workers' rights, including the right to form
independent unions.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be vigilant in fighting against
these violations, and we call on the international community to help us
in this hour of need.
____________________
PRESERVING, PROTECTING, AND ENHANCING SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, over the course of the next hour, a number
of Members, Democrats here in the House, want to explore with our
colleagues and with the American people our commitment to preserving
and protecting and enhancing our Social Security System. It is my
belief that Social Security is one of the best programs that ever came
out of this House of Representatives and this Congress and this Nation.
If we reflect back on the history of this program to a time in this
very chamber in the 1930s, a time when most of our seniors were left in
poverty, left often in disgrace to live destitute in their final years
in this country after having built it into the great country that it
is, and we reflect back on that time and compare it to the standard of
living available to most seniors in this country today, it is a
remarkable development. Over the course of some 60-plus years, thanks
to the leadership of the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a
Democratic Congress, we have a Social Security System that really is
something that all of us can be very thankful for.
That was a system that came into effect over very significant
Republican opposition, and it took from the 1930s until the 1960s,
decades of effort by Democrats in this Congress to move to the second
pillar that is so important to the security of our seniors, and that is
Medicare.
When my fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson, signed Medicare into law to
assure that those who had some retirement security also had a certain
element of health security, nine out of ten of our Republican
colleagues in this House, nine out of ten, voted no. They did not
believe in Medicare.
And so I think it is important, as we begin what I hope will be a
bipartisan effort to bring us together to resolve the issues now about
Social Security, that we do so in a bipartisan fashion, not bound by
our history, but we also must be mindful of our history. And much of
the history of the viewpoints brought to this debate about Social
Security is really fairly recent.
The current leader of the Republican House group, the majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), my colleague from Texas,
has a far different attitude about Social Security and about Medicare
than I have had and that our great President Lyndon Johnson had, and I
believe that most Texans have about Social Security. He has referred to
it, back in 1984, as ``a bad retirement'' and ``a rotten trick'' on the
American people. And he said, just a few years ago, that ``I would
never have created the Social Security System.''
In addition to the comments about Social Security, he said of
Medicare, after the Republicans took control of this House, ``I resent
the fact that when I am 65 I must enroll in Medicare. I deeply and
profoundly resent that,'' he said. ``It is an imposition on my life.''
So we know that at least when some of the leadership of the
Republican Party here in the House come to discuss Social Security and
Medicare,
[[Page 3277]]
though they profess an interest in the same bipartisan solution that
ultimately will be necessary, they have a different perspective about
Social Security and Medicare than those of us who come from a party
that has made Medicare and Social Security a mainstay of our efforts.
Likewise, I was troubled, just after coming to the House here in
1995, to read the banner headline of the newspaper of the Progress in
Freedom Foundation. This is the group that was created by our recent
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. It said, ``For freedom's sake,
eliminate Social Security.'' And it proceeded in this banner editorial,
on the front page of this publication, to say, ``It is time to slay the
largest entitlement program of all: Social Security. A more important
reason than financial returns for privatizing Social Security is
freedom. The government shouldn't be in the business of confiscating
people's retirement money and giving them no say where it is
invested.''
That is perhaps a perspective that could be subject to debate here,
but it is a perspective that has characterized the leadership of this
Republican Party. So that when they come and offer a meaningless
resolution, like that which the House adopted today, that has various
platitudes but really does nothing to accomplish any real reform of the
Social Security System, we cannot help but be mindful of the
perspective and the rigid idealogy that they bring that is very
negative towards Social Security and Medicare.
I hope that over the course of this debate we can reflect on some of
the, I guess the remainder, the leftovers of this rigid ideology that
are continuing to serve to restrict our ability to get meaningful
changes in Social Security, to preserve and strengthen it, rather than
to reform and wreck it.
Now, the leader of our efforts in this regard has been my colleague
from California, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I participated
with him earlier today, with the National Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare, in a discussion of a new study to explore who
the winners and losers are of the various proposals like that advocated
by the Progress in Freedom Foundation and the other people that do not
really believe in Social Security and want to abandon the system of the
last 60-plus years, and I wonder if my colleague from California (Mr.
Matsui) might focus some attention on the significance of this
particular study to our ongoing discussion of Social Security.
{time} 1600
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) for yielding.
The distinguished gentleman from Texas, as many people know, is on
the Subcommittee on Social Security; and his expertise obviously is
greatly needed for not only this entire institution but obviously for
the country. I appreciate today that he has put together this
opportunity for a number of us to speak on the floor of the House on
this very, very critical and important issue of Social Security.
I might just mention the importance of Social Security to all
Americans. It is probably the most significant program that the Federal
Government has put together in the last 100 years, perhaps in the
history of our country.
Every American is touched by Social Security; and, unlike what many
people think, Social Security is not just a program for those people 62
or 65 and older. One-third of the benefits of Social Security goes
basically to women, surviving spouses, and minor children, either
through the form of survivor's benefits when the breadwinner of a
family dies before reaching the age of 65 or, alternatively, when the
breadwinner becomes disabled.
All of us understand and know the fact that, without Social Security,
many young people in America today would not be able to go on to
community college or State college or perhaps a university if, in fact,
that breadwinner is injured or perhaps dies. So this program is perhaps
the most important program that this Congress, perhaps in our lifetime
as Members of Congress, will have to deal with.
Yes, there is a problem with Social Security, demographically. When
Social Security was first established, it was considered then a widows'
and orphans' fund back in the 1930s, as the distinguished gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has said. There were about 30 people working
for each retired individual. Today, there is about three in the
workforce for every retired individual; and sometime in the year 2025
there will only be a little over two.
So we must change, we must make modifications, but we must also
preserve Social Security as we know it in America today.
I have to say that one area that has me greatly concerned is in the
area of tax cuts. The story in the Washington Post and the New York
Times, major newspapers throughout the country, over the weekend, is
that the Republican leadership would like to lift the so-called
spending caps so that we can accommodate additional spending in the
defense budget, perhaps additional spending in other areas. That would
be fine, I suppose, and we will have to debate that issue when we
prepare the budget, hopefully by April 15 when it is due under the
budget rules.
There is also talk about a significant huge tax cut, and everyone
relates this tax cut to the surplus. We heard the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget talk about a $700 billion tax cut over the next
6 or 10 years. We have heard the Senate Budget Committee chairman talk
about an $800 billion or $900 billion tax cut over the next decade.
The problem we have, of course, is that over the next 5 or 6 years
only $86 billion of the hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus will
be in the form of income tax, both income taxes from corporations and
income taxes from individuals. The greatest percentage, 90 percent, of
the surplus will be from the Social Security payroll taxes. We cannot
afford to use those sums, basically coming out of that very regressive
payroll tax, to pay for tax cuts that essentially go to higher income
folks.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means already said that. It
is going to go to people in the high income bracket because he says
they pay more. In fact, we estimated that somebody that makes $300,000
a year will get about a $30,000 tax cut, whereas somebody making
$30,000 a year, one-tenth of that, will get about a $99 per year tax
cut, or maybe $8 a month.
Mr. DOGGETT. Some have suggested that this 10 percent tax cut is just
principally designed to help the top 10 percent of Americans.
Mr. MATSUI. There is no question about that.
Mr. DOGGETT. Or maybe the top 1 percent.
Mr. MATSUI. It just goes to the very, very high income groups.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. THURMAN. Maybe another way to put this then is, if we take this
surplus, the dollars that are coming in from the payroll taxes, which
would be hard-earned folks' money that they spend out of their check,
actually would then go to fund a tax cut across the board or
potentially across the board, leaving us in a deficit for when they get
ready to retire?
Mr. MATSUI. Well, there is no question. I think the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman) is absolutely correct. They are basically taking
money so there is immediate gratification but at the expense of folks
down the road, 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road.
Mrs. THURMAN. It is out of their tax dollars?
Mr. MATSUI. It is out of their tax dollars.
I will conclude by being very brief, because I would like to talk a
little bit about this program that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) spoke about today very briefly. It is very interesting,
because Martha McSteen is the chair of the National Committee to Save
Social Security and Medicare. Martha McSteen had been a Social Security
administrator for 39 years before
[[Page 3278]]
she retired in 1986. She was the acting administrator of the entire
Social Security program from 1983 to 1986, just before she retired.
Believe it or not, that was under the Reagan administration. She was
part of this press conference.
And also John Mueller. And I want to just mention John Mueller's
background. He is an economist, and he was the chief economist for the
Republican Conference, that is the Republican caucus, under the
leadership of then chair of the caucus Jack Kemp. They put together
this report to look into the whole concept of whether or not we should
privatize Social Security. In other words, allow private accounts of
either 2 percent or 5 percent or 4 percent, maybe 3 percent, whatever
it might be, or maybe all of it.
They have concluded, in their very comprehensive study, that in terms
of winners and losers almost every American alive today will be losers
under this program of private accounts, private individual accounts.
The only winners will be single males born in the year 2025, 25 years
from now and beyond.
The reason for that is because, as all of us know, we have an $8
trillion unfunded liability because Social Security is basically a pay-
as-you-go system. It is a system in which current generations pay for
the retirement of past generations, and it is not funded. It is paid
out of the payroll taxes and immediately paid out of the Treasury.
As a result of that, if one moves to a new system, where there are
private accounts, essentially what happens is that the current
generation of workers will be paying two taxes: one for their own
retirement maybe 20 or 30 years down the road and the retirement of
their mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles and perhaps even their
grandparents.
So once we move over to private accounts, we are going to end up
doing great damage to every American that is alive today and probably
will be alive, born in the next 20 years. The only beneficiary will be
somebody who will be born in the year 2025 and beyond. It will be
basically a male who is single.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) can talk about the impact
of this on women.
It is a major study. We hope that people will look at it because it
confirms the Galveston plan, which the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) is so familiar with, in which they do private accounts. A GAO
study showed that the Galveston plan is not working.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has some constituents
that he is going to meet with now, but I appreciate his comments and
his leadership.
I think the kind of participation that Mr. Mueller provides as an
economist, as a Republican, is the very kind of Republican
participation that we need. He conceded in his comments that he began
with a strong ideological predisposition against our current Social
Security system, but he was willing to let the facts overcome that
ideological predisposition.
That is really what we are saying to some of our Republican
colleagues who have made these very harsh criticisms of Social
Security, to look at the facts; and when they show, as this study that
the gentleman referred to, they show that no one alive in the world
today would gain from wrecking the system and changing it so much that
we would not recognize it, then we ought to try to improve the system
rather than to reject it.
I appreciate the gentleman's participation.
I know that the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott), one
of the few physicians here in the House, serving on the Medicare
Commission as well as working on Social Security, has some insight on
this issue as well.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is
to be commended for having scheduled this the day that we passed the
most irrelevant resolution that I can imagine. It was empty in all its
aspects.
I would say to the gentleman from Texas, as I sit here and think
about this, I was thinking about my grandfather. He was a second
generation American who went to the second grade. He could read the
newspaper and he could write, basically, but had no assets. But in the
investment industry in the 1920s there was a guy named Samuel Insole
who had the electrical industry all locked up, and he was selling stock
all over the United States. This was the time when we had private
retirement. Everybody had their own retirement. There was no Social
Security. So someone saved their own money.
Well, Insole came down into central Illinois, where my grandfather
was, selling this stock. My grandfather, no economist, no great
education, said to his wife, if this stuff is so good why are they
selling it in the cornfields of Illinois? Why don't they sell it in
Chicago?
When it crashed and all the old people in this country had nothing,
that is when Franklin Delano Roosevelt came with Social Security.
Because when people tried to invest their own money in the stock
market, some people made it and some people got clobbered.
So this has been a system now in place for 70-some years, I guess 60
years, that has basically been protecting senior citizens. When people
come here talking about let us privatize it, let us get away from a
situation where we all pay into the same pot and we take out as long as
we live and we share the risk, all Americans share the risk together,
the move in the Committee on Ways and Means now is, let us privatize it
and give everybody a little book, and they will put their money in
their little book, and they will know how much they have, and they can
get rich or they can go in the ditch. That will be their choices. Who
knows?
The model they use comes out of Chile. People in this country ought
to take a very careful look at the Chilean example.
First of all, it took a dictator, Augusto Pinochet, to wipe out the
system in Chile of a universal system and give everybody individual
books. They had to wipe out the labor unions, and they ultimately set
this system up.
Two years ago, when the stock market was not doing well, the Chilean
government said to people, please do not retire because the stock
market is down and people will not have enough to live on.
My view is that we ought to be creating a solid system that goes into
the future and not go back to the 1920s in this country.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. THURMAN. There is another fallacy within the Chilean issue and I
think it is one that all of us are very comfortable with and one that
certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has spoken about
and that is, what happens to women and children, to this family issue?
What happens to people who become disabled? If one looks at that
system, there is in no way any kind of a benefit built into their
system; where in ours we have a guaranteed benefit for those particular
folks that find themselves in those very difficult situations.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MATSUI. If I may just indulge for a minute, I noticed that
sitting in the Speaker's seat, as Speaker pro tempore for the day
today, is a new colleague of ours, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose). Actually, he comes from the Sacramento area, as many of my
colleagues know who have met him. He has just taken our distinguished
colleague Vic Fazio's seat, who retired.
I would just like to acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) and say that I am honored to be on the floor of the House in the
gentleman's first opportunity, since he has been elected to the
Congress, as Speaker pro tempore of the House. So I just wanted to say,
and probably breaching some kind of rule here, but I just wanted to
acknowledge the gentleman this evening and say I am very, very
[[Page 3279]]
pleased that he is here and part of this. It is a very historic moment,
obviously, for the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and his family.
Mr. DOGGETT. We are pleased to have the gentleman from California
(Mr. Ose) presiding over us this afternoon. And we are going to keep
talking to the gentleman and with the gentleman, because we do need
everybody from California joining in to help us get Social Security
legislation here, a piece of legislation that we can all be proud of
that will be there for our retirees.
{time} 1615
As the gentlewoman from Florida is pointing out, for what I believe
is about 16.7 million children and adults here in the United States
that are not relying on Social Security as the retirement system but it
is absolutely vital to them that Social Security is there for people
with disabilities or family members with disabilities.
I believe she was pointing out that it does not work that way under
this great model that some of our colleagues have been advocating.
Mrs. THURMAN. The other thing that I might add to that is the issue
of an independent business owner. About 80 percent of them are covered
under no kind of retirement plan and were actually given an option not
to participate at all. We have no clue or idea what would happen if
their business failed in some way when they reach that magical year of
retirement for themselves, of what would happen to them. Would they
become a ward of the country? What happens to this person?
Mr. DOGGETT. The gentlewoman is saying in Chile if we followed that
model, there would be businesses in California, in Florida, in Texas
that would be totally outside of the system.
Mrs. THURMAN. And that is exactly what happened in Chile. In fact,
they said I think 80 percent of the small businesses in fact do not
even participate. We do not know, as I said, if they have no income. I
think that takes us right back to where we are and have been such
strong supporters of Social Security, because when it was developed, it
was specifically developed to lift people up and have some dignity in
their retirement years. In this case we do not know where that dignity
would be, which is why I would be very concerned. It is also happening
in some of the other countries that we are seeing, with privatization,
in the UK and in France and in some other areas where they are looking
at 5 years, they could go bust in those areas and do not have a clue as
to what they are going to do at this point, quite frankly because of
administrative costs in these retirement issues.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I think there is one other thing that I want to
emphasize. Sometimes you cannot say something too many times. That is,
this whole disability business, because I have got an incident in my
own district right now that is right in the middle of my mind. This is
the best disability income program in the world. You cannot buy one any
better than this. We had a policeman who was injured and subsequently
died, 38 years old, a wife, kids 5 and 3. Now, they go into the Social
Security system and she is guaranteed a benefit for herself and those
children for the rest of her life and for the kids up to the age of 18.
Most young people in this country do not know that they are walking
around with this insurance policy in their pocket. It is not one you
want to collect on but it is like your fire insurance. You buy fire
insurance on your house hoping you will never collect on it. The same
is true in terms of this. To make this appear that this is just a
program for old people is simply to misrepresent what the Social
Security system is all about.
Mr. DOGGETT. Let me, if I might, just on that point quantify, because
we had some excellent testimony the other day in our Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Social Security from Marty Ford representing the
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. She pointed out that for the
average wage earner, much as the gentleman was saying for the law
enforcement officer, for the average wage earner with a family, Social
Security that we have today, the insurance benefits, are the equivalent
of a $300,000 life insurance policy or a $200,000 disability insurance
policy. I think that is the kind of benefit that we are talking about
that many people, a small business owner of the type our colleague from
Florida was mentioning, an individual employee could not go out and
afford to buy that kind of policy. But with all of us working together
in this government program, everyone gets that policy of disability
insurance and of life insurance.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I think there is one other thing that the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) brought up and I think needs to be
emphasized, and that is the effect on women. If you have individual
accounts and you work and on the basis of your job you put in whatever
percentage, most women in this society make less than men do.
Mrs. THURMAN. If the gentleman will yield, we make about 74 cents on
a dollar as versus a male. However, I will say that during the State of
the Union, it seemed to be one of the areas where there was a lot of
bipartisan support, that we should have parity in the workforce. I am
ready to work on that issue any time the gentleman is ready.
Mr. McDERMOTT. But there is another way in which women, if you have
individual accounts, not only do they make less but they work less
numbers of quarters, for reasons of childbirth and for reasons of
staying home and taking care of family members. Generally men do not
leave their job and take care of their mother or their father or their
in-laws.
Mrs. THURMAN. The average is about 11 years less than what men work
in the workforce.
Mr. McDERMOTT. And then women live longer. So they have less money as
income, they have worked less number of years and then they live
longer, so that they are impoverished or they will be impoverished by
this kind of system.
Mrs. THURMAN. The way that that would work is they would have to buy
under an individual account an annuity and when they buy that annuity
it would be based on an actuarial life span. Because women are
predicted to live longer, so when they bought theirs at 64, 65,
whenever they were ready to retire, when the insurance folks would
settle this out, they would say you would actually get a lesser per
month check than the male would just because of your life span issue,
which is the reason that that would happen.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Anybody who looks at this with an open mind realizes
that women will suffer if we go to privatization and do not have this
generalized program we have today. That reason alone ought to be enough
to make us keep this program together, if we care about our mothers and
our sisters and our aunts and all the rest.
Mr. DOGGETT. The gentlewoman from Florida was at this briefing today
with the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The Republican economist who did that simulation on these various
privatization schemes, his conclusion was that no group in our society
would be a bigger loser than women, and that it did not make any
difference, well, it makes a difference in degree, I guess, but
regardless of income class, regardless of race, regardless of marital
status, because of the factors that the two of you have just been
describing, women will lose more than any other part of our society if
we reject the Social Security system that has served us so well and go
off with some of these ideological experiments.
Mrs. THURMAN. If the gentleman will yield, just from the synopsis and
summary of findings, it said women would be particularly affected by
the loss of spousal and widows benefits, the lack of benefit
progressivity, and the loss of unisex annuities provided under our
Social Security system as we know it today. And the Social Security
benefit for surviving widows is higher than the benefit widows would
receive under a privatized system. This is true in married couples when
the wife is college educated with even full earnings. So there are
really some issues that would have to be particularly looked at.
[[Page 3280]]
I will say, even in the resolution that was passed today, women was
an area that was considered under this and one of the things that I
would like to say to my colleagues is that it is okay to put it in
words but now let us make sure it turns into action and that we do not
reduce these benefits or these concerns.
If the gentleman will let me just say something else, too, because
this goes into another area but still I think is the whole idea of
security in your retirement years and specifically with the issue of
Medicare and the idea that we would add this additional 15 percent to
take us into the year 2020. I think the gentleman from Texas mentioned
the security of health care. In one of our same hearings, and I know we
are not going to get much into this, but one of the things that was
said during one of our committee hearings, Mr. Lew said basically if
Congress fails to enact this legislation, 15 percent, we have only
three options in the Medicare issue and I hope that we are all
listening to this because he stated that we would have to reduce
provider payments, raise payroll taxes or cut benefits. I am just
adding that in because that is another part of the whole Social
Security issue as we are looking at this debate.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I think one of the things that we need to talk about a
little bit so people really understand it, because sometimes I know
that I think I understand about something until I really begin to feel
about or actually look at it. This Social Security issue really, if you
want to take a point when it got acute was in 1983. We in the Congress,
not any of us, but the Congress decided they were going to save Social
Security, so they raised the contribution rate so that people were
putting more money into the pot that was being paid out in that year,
the so-called pay-as-you-go idea. You put in as much as you have to pay
out. Well, we were putting in more than we had to pay out, so a surplus
developed in there. During the 1980s, under Mr. Reagan, for the Cold
War reasons and a lot of reasons, we borrowed all of that. We borrowed
that money out of the Social Security and we have been paying--we,
meaning the government, borrowed it--and we have been paying interest.
Every year, one dollar out of seven in the Federal budget goes to pay
interest to the Social Security system. It is almost our biggest
expenditure outside of Social Security itself, just a little less than
we spend on defense, we are spending in interest on this money.
The President's proposal in his State of the Union message was
absolutely a stroke of genius, because he is not only paying off the
national deficit but he is also strengthening the Social Security
system by putting in 62 percent of the surplus until the year 2014, and
the amount of national debt will be markedly reduced. I personally
think that it is inconceivable that if you have any conservative bones
anyplace in your body that you would, having received this benefit,
say, well, let us spend it on a tax break rather than pay this enormous
debt that faces this country. I think the people have to understand,
the Congress created the debt, and it is now, when we have surplus, the
time to pay it off. It is like your credit card. If you get a Christmas
bonus and you say, well, let us just buy some more rather than paying
down your credit card, you would say that person was irresponsible. The
Congress will be irresponsible in my view if it does not use this money
to pay down that debt.
Mr. DOGGETT. That is the whole meaning of the phrase ``save Social
Security first.'' We save Social Security first, ahead of anything
else, and we do it by the very fiscally responsible step of paying down
these trillions of dollars of Federal debt that has been accumulated
over the last many decades.
Mrs. THURMAN. Again through the hearings that we have had, if anybody
has been watching the news or reading the newspaper or looking at
Newsweek or any one of the organizations that have been writing about
what is going on up here, Greenspan, both in the Senate Finance
Committee and Ways and Means, Banking, wherever he has appeared over
the last couple of months in his report to Congress has been, this is
the best thing you can do for this country. And then the beneficiaries
are all Americans, because we continue to see a robust economy with
jobs being created, businesses having capital to expand and extend
their businesses, we have lower interest rates or continued lower
interest rates. We know how that has been spurring this economy, the
fact that people have been able to refinance their mortgages so they
have more money in their pockets for disposable income, maybe for
possibly even putting a little money aside for children to go to
college or buy health care or help with long-term care for an elderly
person, whatever that case may be. We all recognize that that is what
we should be doing.
I have to tell you, it was interesting, I am going to try to get it
right. This morning I was going back over some clips. It seemed that
there was this continuing, ``Well, if we don't do this, we've got all
this surplus, should we then give this tax cut?'' And Greenspan said,
``Well, you know, it is the last thing I would like you to do, but the
worst thing you need to do is be spending it on new programs. So if you
can't save it and use it to pay down the debt, well, then maybe you
should do that.''
But quite frankly the first thing we should be doing with this money
is paying down our debt.
Mr. McDERMOTT. The actual quote, if the gentlewoman will yield for a
second, ``My first preference,'' he said, ``is to allow the surpluses
to run for a while and unwind a good deal of the debt to the public
which we have accumulated over the years.'' Here is the man that has
brought in large measure the present economy to its present state. He
is saying, pay off the debt. I do not see how anybody can be against
this. It is going to be interesting to hear the debate that will go on
while they try and justify, ``Well, since we've got the money, rather
than pay it off, we'll just give it back.''
{time} 1630
It is the people are the ones who are going to benefit from
stabilizing Social Security and Medicare. There is a tie between these
two. Because when we talk about these older women, there are about 6
million women in this country living on $8,000 of Social Security, and
it is those people that we are talking about raising the premiums on
Medicare.
Mrs. THURMAN. Sixty percent of the Social Security recipients are
women in this country.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Let me ask you in that regard from your service on the
Medicare Commission. Now I have heard some people on our Committee on
Ways and Means say that they, as Republicans, would agree with the
President to set aside 60-62 percent of future surpluses to take care
of Social Security, but they wanted the rest of it, I guess, for
various other schemes, and they did not want to focus on the Medicare
aspect. If we only do the 62 percent and we do not have any long-term
solution otherwise to Social Security and we do not address Medicare,
what would be the effect on the health security of our seniors?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, I think that, first of all, anybody who would
try and separate them and say one is important and the other is not
simply is not old, because if you are old, you think about two things:
How you are going to pay for your house and your food and how you are
going to pay for your doctor bills. And when Medicare started, 1965,
less than 50 percent of people had health insurance above the age of
65. Now 100 percent are covered. It is the second leg of the economic
security for senior citizens in this country, and you have to stabilize
that plan. Otherwise, the Social Security check is going to go simply
to pay for more health care benefits.
Seniors already spend $2,500 on average in this country out of pocket
on Medicare for medical things that are not covered by Medicare. So the
Social Security and the Medicare are linked very tightly, but it is
absolutely crucial that people have an income to live on. If you do not
have that one stabilized and you start making that one unstable and
then make their health care unstable, you will have taken away all the
emotional security that
[[Page 3281]]
senior citizens feel in this country because of these two programs.
Mr. DOGGETT. A colleague of ours who was a leader even before coming
to this House as a State official in dealing with pensions, retirement
security, insurance, is Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota. And I am pleased
that you join us this afternoon, also now as the co-chair of our entire
Democrat Caucus Task Force on Social Security, and I know you have some
thoughts about this ongoing debate.
Mr. POMEROY. I certainly do, Congressman, and I want to thank you for
your leadership as well as, Congressman McDermott and Congresswoman
Thurman, for your leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means. I know
that you have been having many hearings on this topic awaiting the
reform proposal of the majority.
While it is difficult to try and see what they may be proposing, I
know, as you have told me, the thrust of the debate seems to be shaping
up to be between those that want to reform and reduce Social Security
protections and those that want to strengthen and protect and extend
those protections so that the next generation has the same protections
that our parents, grandparents and we will have as well.
I think that, as we see this take focus, it appears as though those
who want to reduce Social Security will be advancing a proposal of
individual accounts replacing the guarantees and assurances that today
protect one in six families in this country, one in six Americans in
this country receiving a Social Security payment in exchange for an
individual account proposal.
You have mentioned earlier a study that was released today, and I
also want to call it to the attention of the body, a study authorized
by the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare conducted by
a Republican economist that shows there are distinct winners and losers
under a proposal to go to the individual account. But most of us,
virtually all of us living today, fall in the losing category. The
individual account winner fell to one narrow class of males in affluent
earnings that will be born in about 20 years. All of the rest of us
lose, and we lose for one fundamental reason: You have to continue
making payments on the existing structure, the structure that today is
meeting the needs of more than 40 million Americans, even while you
begin to create these individual accounts and direct money to those so
that that is going to work to replace the Social Security payments in
the future.
The thought behind this economist's study was a very simple but
straightforward one. It is always, always more expensive to pay for
retirement twice than once. And so if we fund the existing system and
fund the individual account system, we are in essence paying twice, and
that is the cost that ultimately reduces what Social Security offers to
Americans.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Pomeroy, within that, and so we can kind of look at
this debate and maybe kind of give the audience or whoever is out there
listening to us the word or the captured word that what you are talking
about, and this is the transition tax. It may be called something else,
but the fact of the matter is it is the dollars that are going to have
to be spent to cover those people that are on Social Security today and
within the system.
Now to that, Mr. Pomeroy, one of the things that John Mueller talked
about specifically was these other studies and why these other studies
were wrong when looking at the Social Security system, specifically as
we privatize or if it were to be privatized. And they said that these
are some of the issues that were left out of their models.
And maybe you can help me with this, that they have left out or
underestimated transition costs, which would be this transition tax,
and administrative fees for private accounts, that they have used a so-
called typical household that in reality does not parallel the actual
earnings or employment history of most workers. And, three, they have
used exceptionally high projections for market returns that do not
track with the extremely slow economic growth or cash used by the
Social Security actuaries when we are predicting the future of Social
Security funding.
Mr. POMEROY. That is precisely correct. The gentlewoman is exactly
right. These earlier studies have been flawed, and they are being
corrected by a spate of recent studies done by all perspectives out
there analyzing this very important issue. I cite for the gentlewoman's
attention a November, 1998, EBRI study.
Now EBRI is the Employee Benefits Research Institute, a business-
funded research group assessing the impact of administrative fees on
these individual accounts. The thrust of the study, quite likely the
administrative fees certainly eclipse any enhanced earning opportunity
under the individual account proposal, if they are administratively
possible in the first place.
Mr. McDERMOTT. What is the administrative cost under Social Security?
Do you know?
Mr. POMEROY. The administrative cost under Social Security is under 1
percent. It is truly the most efficient mechanism of getting benefits
available to Americans.
Mr. McDERMOTT. And the administrative costs in an investment house,
Wall Street Journal kind of private investment account, what would that
be?
Mr. POMEROY. Well, they run considerably more than that. In fact, the
least expensive individual account structure could be brought on line
potentially for 8 percent, 800 times what we are presently paying; and
a more likely scenario could be 30 to 40 percent in a completely
privatized environment, reducing benefits in favor of administrative
costs while you reduce the assurances. It is just not the way to go.
Mr. DOGGETT. And while the study that we heard about today was a
simulation using an economic model by a Republican economist, is there
not some experience in some of the foreign countries that have moved to
these private systems that they have actually experienced
administrative costs of the level that you are referring to?
Mr. POMEROY. Well, the fact of the matter is is you are precisely
right, and pensioners and near-to-be pensioners have lost millions, all
told. In the experience of Chile, in the experience of the United
Kingdom, two prevalent examples asserted by those that want to create
individual accounts, look a little deeper and you see that the
administrative expense component is really coming home to roost in
those experiments.
The other real-life example we have is a private alternative to a
Social Security program being run down in Galveston, Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. We usually think everything is a little bigger and
better down in Texas, but in fact the study that you referred to in
Galveston, Texas, most everybody there that was left out of Social
Security. According to the objective study on it, they came out a
looser; did they not?
Mr. POMEROY. Well, this is a study by the General Accounting Office,
and this is not a group with any stake in this debate. They are
providing the strict analysis, and they find precisely that those that
have gone not with the Social Security but with this alternative plan
for the local public employees have not fared as well as they would
have done under Social Security.
As we approach this vitally important program, it is really
important, because of its critical importance to American families,
that we not deal with, you know, ideology and theories and concepts. If
we would make this change, we would not be able to change back, and so
it is vitally important that the research come up a good measure from
what those favoring individual accounts are presently asserting.
For example, they say that African Americans would benefit under a
move to individual accounts. Today's study shows quite conclusively
that African Americans would lose and lose big. They hold this out as
an opportunity for modest income workers to accumulate wealth. Today's
study shows that middle income, modest income workers lose and lose
significantly, as opposed to the assurances they now have with Social
Security. And then finally women, the biggest losers of all under the
shift to individual accounts.
[[Page 3282]]
I look at the perspective from my own family. I cite the three women
in my life: my 78-year-old mother, my 46-year-old wife and my 5-year-
old daughter spanning three generations. All lose, moving away from the
guarantees of our Social Security program into the untested
uncertainties of the individual account environment. The study today
shows it is a loser and we leave people less well off, with greater
risk and lower benefits.
Clearly, this is absolutely not the way to go with a program as
important to Social Security. I think at this point in time, if the
majority wants to continue to pursue this radical reform proposal,
reducing the assurances of Social Security in exchange for the
individual account proposal, it is time for them to stop shooting at
the framework advanced by President Clinton that preserves the
guarantees and advances specific proposals that would establish the
individual accounts. I am convinced, in light of what these studies
have shown, that when analysis is run on any individual account
proposal they will bring forward, we will show reduced benefits, higher
risk, lower assurances and a step backwards in terms of providing
retirement, income security for American families.
I thank the gentleman for this discussion.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Before you walk away, I would like to ask you a
question. You quote that Galveston study. What were the reasons why
people who choose not to go into Social Security but to do their own
investing, why did they come out worse off? I mean, my son has given
that argument to me. He said, dad, we do not need Social Security. Just
give me my money, and I will invest it, and I will be just fine. I
would like to hear what happened to them.
Mr. POMEROY. Well, in fact, they run into the things that we have
been discussing, higher administrative fees, greater investment return
uncertainty, the same things that would face, in fact, the reform of
Social Security.
The fact of the matter is that I think we need to appreciate the fact
that as individuals deal with at-work retirement plans, they are
already taking on a good deal more risk than they traditionally have.
In the past you had your pension, the assets were managed elsewhere,
and you put in your time, and you got your retirement check.
Presently, you have a 401(k) plan. Workers in the work force today
struggle to make a matching contribution so they get some money
accumulating in their 401(k) accounts. We know that over half the
401(k) accounts in the marketplace have less than $10,000 in them,
hardly anything that is going to sustain a comfortable retirement.
We also know that those 401(k) accounts carry a level of investment
risk, and quite often workers are mystified, bewildered by the
investment choices that confound them. The last thing they want to do
is take the one piece of security they have in retirement, Social
Security, the bedrock, the foundation, and put risk into the foundation
as well.
{time} 1645
This is what we build on for retirement security. We do not want to
crack the bedrock assurances social security has offered, creating even
more uncertainty as to the ability to make it in retirement years.
Mrs. THURMAN. One of the other things we have found, not maybe with
the Galveston but just generally, particularly when we are using
another form of an IRA 401(k), those kinds of issues, again, this comes
back to women. In many cases, if they only work maybe 4.7 years at one
job, therefore, for many companies they cannot even vest or participate
in any kind of a retirement system outside of social security, which
creates one problem for them.
Then say that they get into that situation and they do have an
opportunity to vest in something like this, or they have put some money
aside in an IRA. Women are the first ones that give up that security to
give security to their other family members. So if they have a child
that needs to go to school, it becomes an education benefit for their
child. If maybe they need a house or a down payment, they are the first
ones to give up that security that would be used for themselves in that
later time of retirement. So again, here is another little pitfall that
happens for women in these situations.
I think the one about the 4.7 years, so much of this is based on
vesting in any one system. Sometimes it takes as much as 10 years. We
just do not stay at a job for that period of time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I think Earl really put his finger on it. It is there
and we know it is there, and our job has got to be to stabilize it and
make it so that there is no question that it will be there for our
kids.
I think all of us my age or around my age have kids who say, well, I
heard that this is not going to be there when I get to be old. The
first thing we have to get out to them is the message that if we did
nothing, if we did nothing, there would be three-quarters of the
benefits in social security forever. There is no question that we can
do that. The question is whether we are going to have to reduce the
benefits if we do not do something about it.
I think that the mythology of those people who want to privatize it
and get rid of the Federal program has been to say to our kids in an
advertising campaign over and over again, social security is not going
to be there when you get there, so why are you paying for it? You are
paying in, but you are not going to get anything out of it, you know.
That has begun to take effect among young people in this country, when
in fact it is not true. It is a lie that is being pushed by people who
want to destroy the social security system as we have come to know it.
I personally think our biggest job will be, and if we fail in
educating the public about this, at some point they may buy this kind
of mythology, about if they had their own money. But the thing we have
to remember about the United States is that we are not a country which
has done things individually. We do not put out fires individually. We
do not build highways individually. We do not build schools
individually. A social security system, some may be able to build one,
but for everybody who can, there is going to be somebody who cannot.
Our problem here is to make sure that everybody has something.
Otherwise we will be back in the thirties.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points there that I think are
really important, because I have gotten some of those same kinds of
communications. I expect every Member has, particularly from younger
Americans, saying, just show me the money and I will do it on my own.
One of the things we know from the study that came out today that we
have referred to, prepared by a Republican economist who had a leading
staff position with House Republicans in this House during the Reagan
administration, is finding that every one of those people, the young
person that wrote you, the young person that talked with you at a town
meeting in Florida, the young person who contacted me in Austin, Texas,
every one of those people and every single person alive today is going
to come out worse under these experimental plans, according to this
simulation, is going to come out worse than if we maintain and
strengthen the system that we have right now.
Mr. McDERMOTT. How do people get that report? Where is that report?
Mr. DOGGETT. This report is available from the National Committee to
Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I am sure they will have it up
for many of our young people who are web literate on their website. I
know my office will be pleased to supply information, and I am sure
yours, as well, to people from your part of this country who want to
get more information about how they would be affected.
Then I would just add, with reference to what you said about going
back to the thirties, I have to feel that one of the reasons that some
of these Washington think tank ideologues want to break apart the
social security system is that they are so committed ideologically
against anything that has government in it. They do not agree with the
government highways, they certainly do not agree with government
[[Page 3283]]
schools. They want to voucher some students out. They will not vouch
for public education. They feel if they can tear apart the bonds that
have tied Americans together around social security, then they can
eliminate any government program.
I think it is that ideological fervor, it is the kind of thing I was
referring to at the beginning of this special order in the Newt
Gingrich Progress and Freedom Foundation, that it was not just about
financial returns, but it was about some very distorted idea of
freedom; that if you could break apart the social security system, you
could break apart anything else.
I think when we stand up for social security, we are not only
standing for the security of our seniors and our disabled Americans,
but we are standing for some common bonds that tie us together; that I
have an interest in what happens to your family, you have an interest
in what happens to mine; in our retirement, if we are faced with the
loss of a breadwinner, if we are faced with an unexpected disability,
that there is something there to provide us with a little bit of a
safety net in that kind of tragic situation.
I know the gentlewoman has some observations on this.
Mrs. THURMAN. I was just going to say, when the gentleman was talking
about the young person and the report, if we go to page 11 of that
report, and under conclusions, No. 2, and the gentleman from Washington
can say this back to his son, because of the transition tax, and again,
I go back to that, inherent in any move away from pay-as-you-go social
security, no cohort now alive could avoid serious economic losses from
partly or fully privatizing social security, even under the most
unrealistic set of assumptions. All cohorts now living would be
substantially better off with even a scaled-back, balanced, pay-as-you-
go retirement program.
Mr. McDERMOTT. May I ask a question?
Mrs. THURMAN. Certainly.
Mr. McDERMOTT. What is a cohort?
Mrs. THURMAN. I would think that would be one of us; a people, a
person.
Mr. McDERMOTT. A group, right?
Mrs. THURMAN. These are scientific terms they use when they are
putting together these reports.
But also the question that has to go back to that young person today
is, if they are relying on a study, they need to ask the hard question,
too, because this is about their security. Just as important, it is
about their mother's or father's security, so that that does not fall
upon them when they have children and are trying to rear their
children, and all of a sudden they have a parent who has no income, or
any of those kinds of things that could happen to them.
But the hard questions go back to why the other studies are
fundamentally flawed. Why were those questions not asked? Again, they
left out the underestimated transition costs, they have used a so-
called typical household, and the fact that they look at exceptionally
high projections for market returns. Those are the questions we need to
send back to our children.
I would also say, I am not giving up on our children, our sons and
our daughters. They see the benefit to their parents or, in some cases,
their grandparents. They understand that their parents are being able
to pay for their education. They are able to help them buy that first
home, because their parents' parents are not reliant on them for their
everyday household needs. I think that that is very important.
So if we just let them kind of capture back in, look around and see
the benefits social security has provided in their own family, in their
own family today, and then look at friends who might have had a loss of
a parent, or if they have had somebody who has been on disability at an
early age, they can truly look and see what this program has provided.
I hope we will continue to do these kinds of things, to continue to
bring these issues to the American people.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has been great, and I have
enjoyed this, I say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank both Members for their continuing work on this
topic.
I would just summarize in these closing minutes and say that the
first thing is to put social security first. We say, save social
security first. Do not engage in a bunch of new spending programs. Do
not dissipate the surplus with some politically-motivated changes in
the tax code. Use the resources that are available at this great time
in the American economy to see that social security is saved first.
Then second, it is a matter of our working towards a bipartisan
agreement. I believe that we can do that in a constructive way. We must
do that. We should move forward immediately with the President's
program and see how we can make it even better to preserve this very
valuable system.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PATRICK EARLE McCAMMOND, AN EAGLE SCOUT FROM CARTERET COUNTY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy time
for young children in America. Mixed messages from our society about
morality and the value of truth can confuse an already difficult time
for our Nation's children.
When so many young people today are finding destructive means to cope
with everyday frustrations and concerns, I am proud to bring to
Members' attention an outstanding young man from the Third District of
North Carolina who has taken positive steps to ensure a bright future
for himself and his community.
At just 14 years of age, Patrick Earle McCammond recently achieved
the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America. The Eagle Scout
rank is the highest rank in scouting. In fact, only about 2.5 percent
of Boy Scouts ever achieve Eagle Scout. It is an accomplishment
reserved for young men who incorporate the principles in the Boy Scout
oath and the Boy Scout motto in their daily lives, and earn 21 merit
badges in areas ranging from community service and leadership to
physical fitness. Patrick not only handled and met these standards, but
he far surpassed the minimum requirements. In all, Patrick has earned a
total of 55 merit badges, with more in the works. That is more than
double what is required.
He has also received a number of honors and awards within Boy Scouts
in his community, which include the Arrow of Light, World Conservation
Award, International Catholic Awareness Medallion, and the High
Adventure Patch.
While achieving this rank itself is an accomplishment, Patrick has
literally dedicated his youth to helping his community. When I learned
of Patrick's achievements at such a young age, I certainly was
impressed. But only when I learned about a project he developed for his
community did I fully recognize the impact of scouting on Patrick's
life and his future.
One additional requirement for Eagle Scout is the completion of a
service project to benefit a religious institution, school, or
community. We have a strong military presence in North Carolina. In the
Third District alone, which I have the privilege to represent, we have
four military bases with 77,000 retired veterans and another 10,000
retired military. Knowing this, Patrick created a website designed to
assist the veterans in his Carteret County community.
Mr. Speaker, there are many young men in the Third District of North
Carolina like Patrick who have achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, and
even more who will in the future. As their congressman, I am proud of
each and every one.
What makes Patrick McCammond's efforts special to me is his concern
for our veterans. No matter what age, we as a Nation must never forget
the men and women who have served this Nation to protect the freedoms
we enjoy today.
Patrick paid tribute by taking steps to research, create, and
implement his
[[Page 3284]]
project. First he worked with computer professionals and area veterans'
organizations to develop the website, which he named carteretvets.org.
He obtained technical and financial support from local businesses in
order to print informative guides he designed to publicize the website.
He worked with his fellow scouts and classmates to check the site to
ensure it was complete, and to check for flaws.
{time} 1700
Finally, he led demonstrations to introduce his complete project to
local veterans groups. Hundreds of veterans across the country have now
visited and benefit from Patrick's web site.
Outside of his life as a member of the Boy Scouts, Patrick serves as
the eighth grade class representative to his school student council at
Annunciation Catholic School. He maintains a B average in his studies
and is a state-level swimmer on the Carteret Currents swim team.
Patrick also serves as one of the 32 students who were selected from
hundreds in the entire State of North Carolina to be a First Flight
Ambassador for the Class of 2003, First Flight Centennial.
Mr. Speaker, in today's society it is easy to lose sight of the
values of honor, integrity, and character, yet they are the foundations
that make our citizens and our Nation strong.
I would like to thank the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League, and
all programs and organizations within our communities that work to help
teach our children values and help them to recognize their own
potential.
Mr. Speaker, Patrick McCammond exemplifies all that is good in the
youth of America today. I am proud of him and the example that he is
setting for his peers by taking pride in his family, his faith, and his
country. In his actions and in his deeds he, and all who participate in
Scouting, reflect the values and spirit of community service that will
build the future leaders who will make us all proud.
____________________
OBVIOUS BENEFITS OF A CONSERVATIVE, HUMANITARIAN APPROACH TO GOVERNING
IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, before I start, let me just invite all of
our colleagues who are watching and following the floor proceedings on
the Republican side who have been looking forward to this evening's
special order as an opportunity to showcase and feature a number of the
successes of the Republican Conference here in Congress.
Our agenda is one, of course, of fighting for lower taxes, fighting
for strong national defense, insisting that we find methods to secure
and safeguard the Social Security Administration, and creating and
providing the world's best education structure. I want to talk about
the obvious benefits of a conservative, humanitarian approach to
governing in America.
I want to do that, Mr. Speaker, by highlighting a couple of articles
that appeared in the Denver Post over the last few days. Here is the
headline: ``Welfare rolls drop 42 percent. State's decline is faster
than the U.S. average.''
This is important to note because Colorado, among the 50 States, is
considered a low-tax State. Colorado is a State where the regulatory
burden on Colorado businesses and those who create job opportunities is
relatively low. It is a State where we have been serious, quite serious
about putting the welfare reform proposals passed by this Congress into
place at the State level, and the result is very dramatic and very
positive for the people of Colorado. Again, a 42 percent drop in the
welfare caseloads over the last 18 months.
It is a real credit and a dramatic bit of evidence as to what can be
achieved through lower taxation at the Federal level, lower regulation
burdens on those who are creating jobs, and a healthy economy and
business climate.
Mr. Speaker, here is a quote from one individual. He said that this
is primarily due to employment opportunities and to a ``work-first''
model of welfare reform. This is a quote by Maynard Chapman, Welfare
Reform Program Manager for the Colorado Department of Human Services.
``But if job opportunities are not out there, I don't care what type
of welfare reform design you're using, it is not going to work because
the job opportunities are not out there.''
It highlights, that comment, what the Republican Party has been
suggesting and promoting for a long time. That by focusing on a
stronger, more vibrant economy we can structure welfare reform in a way
that works, as it has for a woman named Teri Higgins who was quoted in
the article.
Reform for her has meant a new way of life. After being on welfare
for 3\1/2\ years, she is almost completely self-sufficient. She was a
full-time student halfway through her associates degree program in
business administration when welfare reform kicked in 2 years ago.
Under the new system she had to work, so she decided to work in a work-
study program at Community College of Denver. Within a year, the 37-
year-old single mother of three boys went from being a welfare
recipient to the office manager for the Division of Business and
Government Studies at CCD.
Mr. Speaker, here is what she says. ``What made the difference were
the extra things,'' such as helping her provide for day care so she
could go to school, the emotional support from counselors. She said
that she still struggles. She makes a decent wage and it is hard to
make ends meet, ``but when I sit down and write checks out for all my
bills and everything is paid, that is really a good feeling.''
I suggest that for Teri Higgins, and for millions of people just like
her, this pathway to self-sufficiency is the definition of liberty and
freedom in America. It is made possible by the Republican majority in
the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate
that, for the last 4 years that we have had the majority, heading into
our fifth year, we have focused on tax relief. We have focused on
families. We have focused on reducing the regulatory burden on those
who provide the kind of jobs that Teri now enjoys. That, in the end, is
by far a better definition of a caring, compassionate, humanitarian,
conservative philosophy designed to put people first and help Americans
help themselves.
Mr. Speaker, with that I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding to me. I am especially interested in some of the definitions
that tend to waft around inside the Beltway here, one being
``compassion.'' I think, if one saw the New York Times last week, they
saw an example of this. The noted commentator and columnist, Tony Snow,
mentioned it this past Sunday on Fox News Sunday when a front page
article in the New York Times bemoaned the reduction in applications
for food stamps.
Mr. Speaker, let me simply affirm that the truest form of compassion
is not adding people to the welfare rolls, not adding people to the
food stamps program. The true definition of compassion is helping those
people, just as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned, move from
welfare to work so that they have the opportunity to provide for
themselves and their families, so that they have the chance to realize
their hopes and their dreams. That is the true measure of compassion.
Mr. Speaker, I must also note with great interest some of the
comments in the preceding hour. It is sad to hear some come to this
floor and so passionately try to sell an agenda of fear to the American
public, rather than facts, to merchant or to market the politics of
fear as opposed to the policies of hope.
Mr. Speaker, this common-sense conservative majority, in the
tradition of welfare reform, is moving four major goals:
Number one, to protect, save and improve Social Security and
Medicare.
Number two, to offer meaningful tax relief for working Americans.
[[Page 3285]]
Number three, to improve education, not by micromanagement from
Washington bureaucrats but by empowering parents and students and
teachers and local school districts.
And, number four, to strengthen our national defense and security.
Indeed, I was walking over with a constituent, a man who lives in
Winslow, Arizona, part of the Guard and Reserves and also a Federal
employee. He was telling me on the way over to this Chamber how he and
his wife embrace the notion of lower taxes for everyone because they do
not want to see someone punished for succeeding. They understand that
as they will experience this year, with a child under 17 still at home,
a $400 per child tax credit. That $400 stays in their pocket to save,
spend, or invest as they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, that is the challenge, is it not? Is there not a central
choice here? Who do we trust, Washington bureaucrats or our family, to
make decisions? That is the key and that is what we champion in this
common-sense majority.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see another of our colleagues, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), one of our newcomers. I welcome
him to the Chamber. We are glad that he is here.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, my
friend and colleague, for yielding to me. I certainly concur with the
remarks that have been made to date with regard to the issue of
taxation, the impact it has on the country, the effect it has on
productivity, the ability for this Nation to move ahead, to create
jobs, to create wealth.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that whatever we tax, we get less of;
whatever we subsidize, we get more of. The fact is that when we tax
productivity, when we tax jobs, we are going to get less of them. It is
not, as they say, ``rocket science'' to realize that this is the effect
of overtaxation.
We are now at a rate of taxation in this country that has never
before been seen. Many people do not realize that because times are
good. We hear it all the time: Times are good. And so there is an
assumption that if everybody is employed, that everybody enjoys paying
a high level of taxes just because they have a job.
But, Mr. Speaker, they do not. As a matter of fact, even those people
who are employed and making good wages deserve a tax break, deserve a
tax reduction. Even those people who are on farms and who have spent a
lifetime investing in the land and bring food to our tables, those
people need a tax break. Those people need to have the abolishment of
the inheritance tax. This is something that this Republican Congress is
going to put forward. It is one of the many issues that we will drive
forward to attempt once again to bring into line this Federal
Government that is, in fact, oppressive enough to actually raise almost
20 percent of the GDP now going to taxes. Most families in this country
are paying upwards of 40 percent of their income in taxes.
I cannot believe that there are people even here in this body, but
certainly on that side of the aisle, who would suggest that that is
anything even remotely near fair. There is nothing fair about taking 40
cents out of every single dollar that a man or woman working in this
Nation makes and giving it to the government. There is nothing fair out
of that. We do not get that much out of it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, when we listen to our constituents, as the
gentleman from Arizona mentioned a little earlier, our constituents
will tell us and help us to understand how important this issue is. I
want to share with my colleagues a letter I received from a woman in
Fort Morgan, Colorado. She said, ``Since Republicans gained control of
the House and Senate in 1994, my husband and I have been eagerly
looking forward to some kind of tax reduction.'' And she said this
January she is going to be retiring early. Her biggest concern, number
one urgent need, is further tax relief to allow her and her husband to
do some better financial planning and to deal with the situation that
is about to change in their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I brought a stack of letters from constituents back home
and over and over and over again these constituents tell us that the
upwards of 40 percent of taxes, when we consider the Federal, State and
local taxes and when we consider the cost of regulation on top of that,
the cost of being an American citizen is well over 50 percent of
income. By no one's definition can that be regarded as being fair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) who
has joined us.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think we get some of the same letters. I
have a letter from a woman in Savannah, Georgia. ``Dear Mr. Kingston, I
recently heard you say how much taxes have increased since the 1950s.
Can you give me those statistics again? I am a homemaker in Savannah,
Georgia, with four children and would greatly appreciate the ability of
our family to keep more of its hard-earned money. Signed, Elizabeth
Morris.''
The income tax burden in the 1950s, as the gentleman from Arizona
knows well, being on the Committee on Ways and Means, was 5 percent. In
the 1970s when we were growing up, most of us in this room, it was 16
percent. Today it is 24 percent.
That is just the income tax. That is not talking about the property
taxes and all the other incurred taxes that our constituents and hard-
working middle-class people have to pay. But the reality is the higher
our tax burden, the less time we have to spend with our family, with
our children imparting values, teaching them the work ethic, teaching
them right from wrong, because that second income in the family often
is going to pay for Uncle Sam and our excesses.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a point that needs to be brought home is
something borrowing from the gentleman from Colorado who talked about
the percentage of our gross domestic product that now goes to taxation.
Though I fear, Mr. Speaker, from time to time that is a very salient
point and factually correct, sometimes we need to translate that into
everyday language by offering other examples, and the gentleman from
Georgia has done so.
I would say it this way, borrowing from my other colleague from
Colorado: There has come to be in this Nation an observance of a day
that is not exactly a holiday, though it offers emancipation from the
burden of taxation.
{time} 1715
We call it tax freedom day. Depending on the calculation, whether we
are talking exclusively about Federal taxes or if we combine them all,
as the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, the cost of all taxation
and the hidden costs of regulation, quite often, American citizens work
from January 1 through our Independence Day or close to it on an annual
basis to free themselves from the yoke of taxation. That is what we are
talking about here.
These deal with flesh and blood human beings who are facing
decisions, who, oft times, in a household, we will see both parents
working, not by choice but by necessity, as my colleague, the gentleman
from Georgia, points out, because one spouse is working essentially to
continue to pay and satisfy the gaping wall of taxation.
It is a very simple concept here. One works hard for the money one
earns. One should hang onto more of it and send less of it here to
Washington, D.C., because now we find ourselves in the day of an
overcharge. We are overcharging for government services.
When money hangs around the Federal Treasury, it is kind of like
cookies in the jar in the Hayworth household. Somehow somebody gets to
it. In the case of the money, it is spent by bureaucrats. As the
attorneys would say, there is a preponderance of physical evidence to
say what happens to the cookies in the cookie jar and who might get
them from time to time.
So what we again must embrace is this notion of broad-based tax
reform. Despite the calls of those who would offer the politic of fear,
we embrace the policies of hope when we say that every American who
succeeds ought to have the opportunity to hang on to more of
[[Page 3286]]
what he or she earns and send less of it to the Federal Government; and
understand that those who have succeeded through their investment,
through their risk taking, if you will, in the marketplace, create jobs
and create more opportunity and help to fuel an economic boom.
So that is what we champion here, along with our three other pillars
of policy in the 106th Congress, to strengthen and protect Medicare, to
improve education by empowering parents and local communities and,
thirdly, to improve and bolster our national defense.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, our new colleague, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), has been sworn in for a little less than 2
months; and I am curious, what has his constituents been telling him?
Has he been hearing about the issue of taxes in the short time that he
has been a Member of Congress?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Colorado, for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I have certainly been hearing a great deal. As a matter
of fact, I do not believe that I can put it more succinctly or more
profoundly than a constituent from Aurora who writes, ``The American
dream has always been to get married and raise a family, to own your
own business, to own your own farm, to build a secure and better future
for your children to enjoy, to pass on what you have worked so hard for
and paid taxes along the way for the next generation.
``For the past 20 years, I have successfully built several
dealerships, providing jobs and revenue to several communities. These
past years, I have given my all to build and make a secure future for
my heirs. This can all be taken away from them if I should die and they
should have to pay 55 percent on the estate. Would they have to
liquidate or sell to be able to pay the estate tax? What would happen
to everything that I worked so hard to provide for them? I support the
estate tax reform so that not just me but all who have worked hard and
built a nest egg for the future generation can keep it, not the
government.''
Now I say, Mr. Speaker, again, a profound communication from a
constituent who understands fully the implications of this. I recognize
that, for years, the idea behind an estate tax or let us call it what
it is, it is a death tax, the idea behind that, it is a class envy
thing, to a certain extent, where people felt, well, if people amass
too much, we should actually just take it away from them and divvy it
up again; that is only fair. Well, it is not fair. Again, this idea of
fairness, to whom is it fair? It is not fair to this gentleman. It is
not fair to his family.
Another thing, if one cannot accumulate for oneself and for one's
heirs, for whom will one accumulate? The government? Would we be
expecting the people in this country to go out and work day in and day
out, again, creating real value, something the government knows very
well about the actual creation of value? Do we expect John and Jane Q.
Citizen to go out every single day to do that, only to give it away
upon their death so they cannot pass it on to their heirs? No, of
course not.
This is as socialistic a tax as we have in this country, and it
should be done away with; as well as all tax reform efforts I think on
the part of this Congress should move forward dramatically.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for one question. The
common misconception by the liberals on the House floor when we debate
reductions in the death tax or the inheritance tax is that this is a
tax that one only needs to be concerned about if one is extraordinarily
wealthy. But the inheritance tax applies to anyone who has parents and
who is part of a will or a trust or estate. It is virtually every
American.
Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) agree
with me that this is a tax that every single American ought to be
concerned about?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a tax that every American
should be concerned about. Not only that, the idea that the only people
who pay it are the wealthy, I mean, go and look at the farmers of
America today. Find me, this wealthy farmer out there who has wealth,
as I say, yes, he has got wealth in the land, but it is just in the
land. In order to transfer that wealth into true, hard, honest dollars,
he has to dispose of it or his heirs do in order to pay this tax.
So it is bogus to suggest it is Daddy Warbucks, as the liberals and
the Democrats want to suggest. That is the kind of picture they want to
conjure up when we talk about eliminating the inheritance tax or the
death tax. Well, it is not. It is the family farmers in Kansas and
Colorado and Oklahoma and throughout this land that work every single
day to put food on our tables. So my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), is absolutely right in that
respect.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, just to
bring home the point again, mindful of the letters the gentleman
brought from constituents, and as pleased as I am, Mr. Speaker, that
one of my constituents from Winslow, Arizona, joined me on the stroll
over, this topic of death taxes came up at a town hall meeting last
year in Winslow, Arizona. As our schedule worked out, this was a
noontime meeting.
One of the great satisfactions of this incredible honor of serving in
the Congress of the United States is we meet so many people who want to
make a difference. Two young men had gotten an excuse from school on
their lunch hour, an early dismissal, to come to the town hall. These
two young men had aspirations of attending one of our military
academies.
They came, and they heard some of the seniors and other citizens in
the room discussing just what my colleagues have pointed out, Mr.
Speaker, this incredible unfairness of the death tax. Indeed, Mr.
Speaker, it was reminiscent of the franchise that Art Linkletter used
with such great effect over the years, ``Kids say the darnedest
things.''
Here was this young man standing there just at the height of his
youth and enthusiasm and wanting to do the right thing and wanting to
join the military. He stood there ramrod straight and said,
``Congressman, sir, do you mean to tell me the Federal Government taxes
you when you die?'' And there was laughter, just as this response
comes. But as I reminded the citizens assembled, it really was not
funny.
My colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), was quoted
in the Wall Street Journal during his first term who evoked memories of
our early colonial days when he said of the death tax, ``No taxation
without respiration.'' That particular observation has stuck with me.
But, Mr. Speaker, it goes further than that. Understand that this tax
is so oppressive and our mission as a constitutional republic has gone
so far afield. Remember what Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's
Almanac, ``There are only two certainties in this life: death and
taxes.''
But even Dr. Franklin with his tax and his ability to invent and to
almost see into time and foretell the future, even Dr. Franklin would
be shocked to come back to this constitutional republic that he helped
to found, and his reaction would be much like the reaction of the young
man. Do you mean to tell me this government taxes you when you die?
We have seen it in our districts, in our States, across the country.
Energetic enterprises, businesses that are not huge conglomerates but
family-owned businesses, whether on Main Street or on the ranch or on
the farm, those businesses broken apart, the assets sold, to satisfy or
try to satisfy this most egregious tax that reaches in even to the
grave to rob those who have accomplished.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned young people,
mentioned those who are trying to establish businesses. My colleague,
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), mentioned farmers and
ranchers, that literally every American is affected by the inheritance
taxes.
[[Page 3287]]
I want to share with my colleagues another letter that I received
just a few weeks ago. This was sent as a Mailogram, as it was addressed
to me. It says, ``The administration's 2000 budget plan presented to
Congress on February 1 imposes new taxes that will make it harder for
millions of American families to save for their own retirement needs
and will seriously jeopardize the financial protection of families and
businesses.''
The writer goes on, and this is a writer from Loveland, Colorado in
my district, ``Providing for retirement and securing your family's
financial security should not be a, quote, taxing experience. Americans
are taking more responsibility for their own financial futures, and
they have made it clear that they oppose both direct and indirect tax
bites that jeopardize their retirement security and their ability to
protect their families. Congress on a bipartisan basis soundly rejected
a similar approach last year.''
I will interject, it is true that the President, under the
administration's budget, proposed a litany of new taxes on the American
people, which the Republican Congress was fortunately here to prevent.
He goes on, ``And I strongly urge you to do the same this time
around. Please oppose any new direct or indirect taxes.''
At a time when the Federal Government confiscates upwards of 40
percent of an average family's income, it is almost incomprehensible
that, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, they are conjuring up
new plans for the 2000 budget to raise approximately 73 new taxes, new
taxes on businesses, on farmers, ranchers, on financial institutions.
In the end, what it does is it takes away the liberty and freedom and
the success that is being discovered throughout the country in States
like Colorado where we are seeing again headlines like this, ``Welfare
Rolls Drop 42 Percent.''
The reason those welfare rolls are dropping is because Colorado in
this case is a State with relatively low State taxes with a very high
regard for a favorable and growing business climate. These high taxes
rob the American people of opportunity. They rob average families from
the ability, from the assets necessary to do the simple things in life,
like raise a family and keep a roof over your head and put food on the
table.
It makes it virtually impossible for the entrepreneurs to fully
captivate and capture the great American spirit of self-sufficiency,
not only to provide for themselves through an economic enterprise, but
to provide jobs for others who need them, jobs like those that I
mentioned that used to be welfare recipients who are now self-
sufficient. That is really what is at stake.
The tax debate in Congress is not about simply cutting taxes or
trying to win elections on the basis of tax reform. The tax relief
debate is about real people, about real Americans, real farmers and
ranchers who are struggling today, real business owners who are trying
to provide more jobs and allow for more people to escape welfare. It is
about the children of these families who deserve the same kind of
America that we all enjoy and rally around.
That is what this tax debate is about. It is a very personal,
humanitarian debate. It is one that we need to win. We do need to stand
in the way of those people over in the executive branch of government
who think this is the perfect year to raise more taxes, new taxes on
the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is so true that the perception that is
held by so many people, even here in this town, certainly on the other
side of the aisle and over at the White House, is that the country will
actually not only survive another tax increase but we can get away with
it because, again, as I say, times are good. Somehow this blanks out
everything else.
We assume that we can then start promising everything to everybody
again. We can come up with how many hundred programs were mentioned,
how many hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures were suggested
by the President in his budget? All of this, with keeping a straight
face and suggesting that we are not going to, quote, bust the budget;
we are going to maintain an agreement.
Of course, the only way that he could possibly make that statement,
Mr. Speaker, the only way is because he was able to play a shell game
with the Social Security issue. He was able to suggest that we could
take, as he says, 62 percent, the President of the United States in his
State of the Union message, and since then has suggested that we could
take 62 percent of the ``Social Security surplus,'' apply it toward
Social Security and, somehow or other, that would solve our problem;
and that would allow for, of course, us to do other things. It would
create other programs.
Well, we know why, my friends, is because if we are talking about not
correcting and not reforming the Social Security system, if we are
talking about not actually building a firewall between the Social
Security fund and the rest of the government expenditures, then we can
do it.
{time} 1730
Because what he is really suggesting is an increase over whatever 62
percent represents of this ``surplus'', however much money that is.
That is what he is suggesting he is going to do to increase the Social
Security debt. Because it is truly debt. It is not money.
When our friends and neighbors pay money to the government, when they
send in their FICA taxes, they think they are actually putting money in
a bank. That is the thought, because it is a fund. It is called the
Social Security fund. Well, that is not it at all. There is nothing in
the fund. There are no dollars in the fund. There are $750 billion
worth of papers stamped nonnegotiable bonds. That is the only place an
instrument like that is in use in this whole Nation. Nonnegotiable
bonds.
Well, what the President is suggesting is that he is going to correct
this by adding 62 percent of the surplus to that debt, to those
nonnegotiable bonds, and take the actual revenues, bringing it into the
general fund again and creating more new programs. It is a shell game.
But he is masterful at it, there are no two ways about it.
So I suggest to my colleagues that we should clear up this issue and
we should bring to the attention of the American public the facts
regarding Social Security and tax reduction. We should, in fact, create
that fire wall between the Social Security fund and the general fund,
and we should still move, I think quickly and dramatically, toward tax
reduction and reform.
Mr. HAYWORTH. My colleague makes a very, very good point. It has been
echoed by several economists and several columnists. Indeed, Robert J.
Samuelson in this town talks about the double counting.
We have dealt so much for so long on so many topics, sadly, in an
atmosphere of doublespeak from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Indeed, my colleague from Colorado, perhaps unintentionally, was
describing quite accurately the feeling of many Americans when he used
the phrase ``get away with it'', an abdication of responsibility so
breathtaking and shocking not only in terms of personal conduct but
also in terms, Mr. Speaker, of the sacred trust which we assume as
constitutional officers.
Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder to see some who come to this chamber, as
did our President for his State of the Union message, and stand at the
podium behind me here. I took my own copious notes, and by my count the
President proposed 80 new programs, 80 new programs, in the span of 77
minutes. And now, when our friends put a sharp pencil to paper and
check the very real cost of those programs, to really pay for those
programs we must have close to 80 new taxes or fee increases. And yet
those who would tell us that they would guard the surplus, that they
somehow are true guardians of the public trust, are engaged, in fact,
in double count and doublespeak.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we heard it in this very chamber in the hour
preceding this one, when those who look
[[Page 3288]]
for shortcuts to political advantage continue to market and play upon
the politics of fear rather than the policies of truth and hope. That
is what we hear, Mr. Speaker, even in the wake of today's passage of a
bipartisan resolution recommitting this Congress to the safety and
sanctity of Social Security. We had one gentleman from Texas come to
this floor and, in essence, say that Social Security was going to be
destroyed. How sad and how false.
We have a responsibility to our constituents who have called upon us
to represent them, to govern, because we have been selected by the
people and for the people. And, oh, how I yearn for straight talk and
taking a look and making the tough decisions. Because as I said in this
chamber earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we cannot approach this as
Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans to solve this problem. And
yet the temptation of political advantage and the siren song of
notoriety inside the beltway tends to propel others in these very
partisan directions.
Let us at long last, Mr. Speaker, call for truth in personal conduct
and in leveling with the American people both on matters of demeanor
and policies of government. Is that too much to ask?
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to hear the Vice President of the United
States say to the assembled press corps 1 year ago, ``My legal counsel
informs me there is no controlling legal authority.'' I think the Vice
President was wrong. There is a controlling legal authority. It is
called the Constitution of the United States.
And, moreover, there is a compelling and controlling moral authority,
and it is called the oath of office that each of us take. And how those
succumb to temptations to ``get away with it'', whatever ``it'' may be,
is both galling and not to be easily understood; and, in the final
analysis, reprehensible, because it ignores and it counterfeits the
sacred trust that citizens have placed in us.
That is the challenge we face; not to be facile and glib and get away
with it, but to be about the business of the people; not to fly from
place to place for campaign-like rallies, but to join with us and
govern; and not to double count or double deal or doublespeak, but to
work out legitimate differences and speak as best we can with one voice
to confront these problems. These are the challenges we face.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, these unfortunate strategies that the
gentleman has described that we typically see coming out of the White
House are really emblematic of, I think, what the White House realizes
the American people want to see, what they want to hear, and what they
intuitively know and believe, and that is the belief that a large
Federal Government is inherently bad for the American society. So they
do go through all of these machinations and smoke and mirror strategies
to try to mask and conceal what it is they really are pushing for and
pushing toward.
The bottom line is their vision for America is a larger Federal
Government that defines a society. Our vision as a Republican majority
is for a smaller Federal Government and a greater American people. And
I say a greater American people in the context of what the budget
debate in this Congress is generally all about.
Thomas Jefferson said that there will always be two prevailing
parties in a political system, the side that believes that we organize
ourselves around a central government structure and there is the other
side that believes that we organize ourselves around the strength of
individuals. Those two parties are alive and well today.
The Democrat party that the gentleman described is one that is using
remarkable linguistic gymnastics to double count imaginary money to
suggest we should feel safe and secure that the government is not
growing, when, in fact, it is growing by leaps and bounds. The national
debt continues to grow on a year-by-year basis.
Our mission as a Republican Party is precisely the opposite. We want
to invest the public's wealth in appropriate ways. We believe, however,
that that wealth is better invested with the people who earn it. We
want to shrink the amount of cash that makes its way to Washington,
D.C., thereby strengthening the amount of cash that stays in the
pockets of the American families, the American farmers, the American
business men and women who work hard every day, who are the true
individuals who define what it means to be an American.
In the end, we care about saving and rescuing the Social Security
System and rescuing the Medicare trust fund. We care about a strong
national defense and having world class schools second to none. In
order to do that, we can raise the resources necessary to accomplish
these goals by focusing on economic growth, not a growth in the tax
rate. And that is a key distinction and a key difference.
I notice the gentleman from Georgia is here, and I will yield the
floor to him.
Mr. KINGSTON. I have a letter that somewhat ties into this, and I
wanted to bring it up. It is from Mr. Jones Taylor of Saint Simons
Island, Georgia, and he just says, paraphrasing here, that ``I was
disappointed in the Republican lack of agenda during 1998. Are you guys
going to do that again or what is your agenda?''
I can say very easily what my agenda is, and I regret that I have not
been here the whole time, so my colleagues may have discussed it, but I
call it the BEST military, health care and agriculture: ``B'' for
balancing the budget and paying down the debt; ``E'' for excellence in
education; ``S'' for saving Social Security; ``T'' for lowering taxes.
A strong military, a health care system that is affordable and
accessible and a safe and abundant food supply.
Now, in that context, the gentleman mentioned stimulating the
economy. One of the great ways to do that, of course, is to pay down
the debt. We pay down the debt and then the big bear, the big monster
in the interest market, in the borrowing market, the Federal
Government, takes a smaller percentage of the interest out there. And
that is a great way to stimulate the economy.
And if we do have a strong economy, revenues to the Federal
Government go up and we will have a lot of money for expanding and
strengthening our military, to increase the pay for our hard working
soldiers, and, of course, to give the teachers in the classroom the
educational funds that they need, and to shore up Social Security and
Medicare. BEST military, health care and agriculture. That is a very
solid agenda.
I know in each area of the country there are different things that we
can emphasize. Agriculture in Colorado will be a little different than
agriculture in Georgia, but the fundamentals of having a safe and
abundant food supply is just as important in Colorado or Arizona as it
is in Georgia.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Does the gentleman from Colorado have anything else to
add?
Mr. TANCREDO. Well, I would just say that I have learned a lot of
things in this last month and a half from my experience here in the
Congress, and I must tell my colleagues that one of the scariest
realizations that I have come to is that there is the possibility that
there are, I do not know, certainly a large number, maybe a majority of
the people even in this body who believe that, in fact, the government
is not big enough; that, in fact, we have not paid enough taxes and
that we need to pay more.
I keep thinking to myself that either I am certainly out of touch or
the rest of these people are. My colleague from Colorado knows, because
we have spoken to some of the same groups, I can go home and there is a
group called the Jefferson County Men's Club and there is the Arapaho
County Men's Club, and I always think to myself when I hear people say
things like this, that taxes are not high enough, that government is
not big enough, I think how would this play in front of the Jefferson
County Men's Club or the Arapaho County Men's Club? What would they say
if I came back to them and said there are a lot of people there who
think government is not big enough and ask them what they think. I can
tell my colleagues I know what they
[[Page 3289]]
would say; that we are out of our minds. And sometimes it sounds like
it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me once again, Mr. Speaker, bring this issue to the
perspective of those who are not business owners, who are not those who
enjoy extravagant wealth, but every day Americans who are struggling
hard to make ends meet.
Once again I use the State of Colorado as an example: A low-tax
State. A small government State. Here is another news article from my
State that is just a couple days old. It says, ``The boom boosts
fringe: Transients among many landing jobs. Colorado's booming job
market has given a boost to those who historically have lived on the
outskirts of the economy, from the homeless veterans to the working
poor. Clients of the Salvation Army, the Harbor Program'', which is in
downtown Denver, ``are landing jobs above minimum wage.'' That is
according to the resident manager Mark Garramone. Here is a quote from
him. He says, ``As a matter of fact, they are finding a lot of good
jobs.'' He says, ``Among those jobs cited were car salesmen, chauffeur,
a few work at U.S. West.'' At the Department of Veterans Affairs,
listen to this, here is a quote, ``We placed in jobs the highest number
of veterans in 1998 that we have ever placed.'' That according to Greg
Bittle, Chief of the VA's Regional Office for Vocational Rehabilitation
and Counseling. He says, ``In fact, the booming economy tends to pull
people away. We are basically a training and education program, and the
economy has been so robust that we will have vets drop out of school to
take jobs.'' It just goes on and on.
{time} 1745
Here is another example that was mentioned in here. Laurie Harvey,
Executive Director of the Center for Women's Employment and Education,
I went and visited this facility in Denver 2 years ago. It places low-
income women, largely from the welfare rolls, in jobs. They say that so
many of Colorado's welfare recipients have moved off the rolls and into
employment that her nonprofit is now seeing more and more people who
are harder to serve.
So when it comes to public assistance for those who are looking for
employment, we are narrowing our focus to those who have the legitimate
needs for some kind of assistance, whether it is some kind of
disability or handicap or whatever the case is.
It even goes beyond that. Listen to this last quote I will mention.
It says, I would say there is probably a shortage of entry level labor.
This is from Timothy Hall, chief executive officer for Larinden, which
trains and places developmentally challenged people. He says, it is
easier to convince employers to hire people with disabilities.
Low taxes, low regulation, small government in a State like Colorado
is the model that we ought to look toward here at the Federal
Government. The model of Colorado is putting people back to work who
are veterans, those who suffer from disabilities, those who have been
on welfare for years and years and years, those who are clients of the
Salvation Army. Charity after charity after charity is celebrating the
positive benefits of a strong, vibrant economy accomplished through
smaller government, lower taxation, less regulation and more attention
to growing a prosperous economy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would just follow the observation and say it is my
honor to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means; and our good
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), currently
chairs the Subcommittee on Social Security but in the 104th Congress it
was his job as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources to put
in place welfare reform.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I cannot help but remember that
essentially the same welfare reform package intact was passed once by
this Congress and vetoed by the President; again by this Congress and
vetoed by the President; and finally, when it was sent the third time,
as we understand from press accounts, one of the President's political
consultants used the baseball analogy, saying, Mr. President, you do
not want three strikes and you are out; sign this legislation.
I appreciate the fact and indeed, Mr. Speaker, we all know from our
civics class, that we enact laws, but the President must execute his
signature to see those laws implemented. So we welcomed at long last
his signature. This is an example of a contentious challenge that was
met head-on even in the atmosphere of contention in that 104th Congress
to bring about a desired change, to now where we can measure compassion
by a more accurate barometer by the number of people who voluntarily
leave the welfare rolls in favor of work; by the news that there are
fewer applicants for food stamps because people are becoming self-
sufficient.
Again understand, we make no pretense of ripping away the social
safety net, but welfare reform helps prevent that safety net from
turning into a hammock. That is what we have accomplished on both sides
of the aisle. And that spirit, that example, should serve us well as we
deal with this very difficult question of Social Security reform. How
do we best save it? How do we maximize opportunities for all of our
citizens, regardless of their age or their station in life?
Mr. SCHAFFER. In our remaining few minutes, I want to really talk
about the importance of communicating with Members of Congress. The
four of us who are here tonight I think are very representative of the
Republican majority Members who serve in the House of Representatives.
We rely heavily on the letters and phone calls from constituents, those
who show up at the town meetings and find ways to communicate with
their Members of Congress directly.
Those kinds of letters, phone calls and communications from
constituents really arm us, as Members, with the real-life examples
that are necessary to take on the party of the large bureaucracy, take
on the White House and those who believe that, in a year like this,
that higher taxes, for example, is a good idea. It is letters from
constituents that tell us and remind us every day that bigger
government is a thing of the past.
Let me use one more example from my district. This is under the
letterhead of Tri-City Sprinkler and Landscape. It is from Loveland,
Colorado. It says, Dear Representative Schaffer, I am your constituent
from Loveland. As a business owner and grandparent, I am very concerned
about the serious economic problems facing our country. I feel our
current income tax structure is having a very negative impact by taxing
production, savings and investment, the very things which can make our
economy strong. Therefore, I support replacing the income tax and the
IRS with a national consumption tax such as suggested in H.R. 2001, the
National Retail Sales Tax Act. I urge you and your staff to look into
it and cosponsor it. Please let me know where you stand on this
important matter.
I will write back to the constituent and give her my opinions and
thoughts on that. I mention this letter and others that we have gone
through tonight just to let the American people know that this
government does not belong to the President. This government does not
belong to any single Member of Congress. It does not belong to the
Supreme Court. It belongs to the people just like the woman who wrote
this letter, just like the people who write all of these other letters,
and we really do rely on their advice and their assistance and their
help in helping make the case on behalf of individual Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) the
remaining few minutes that we have left.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. DUNCAN. I would like to mention when the gentleman talks about
the issue of tax reform and going to a simpler and fairer tax system,
Newsweek Magazine a few months ago on its cover had a story, a cover
story about the IRS; and it said, The IRS: Lawless, Abusive, Out of
Control.
[[Page 3290]]
When any major department or agency of the Federal Government can be
described by a mainstream magazine like Newsweek as lawless, abusive
and out of control, things have gotten to a pretty sad state. It is
especially sad when an agency as intrusive as the Internal Revenue
Service can be accurately described in that way. So I think we
basically should just take the Internal Revenue Code that we have now
and junk it and start over again. I think about 85 or 90 percent of the
American people feel that way.
Mr. SCHAFFER. On the matter of constituent input, how helpful do you
find that representing your district in Tennessee?
Mr. DUNCAN. I find it very helpful. For those who think that we have
cut taxes too much, a few years ago we had a $90 billion tax cut spread
over 5 years because that was the most we could get through at that
time. Some of the more liberal Members kicked and screamed about that,
but that was spread over 5 years.
That was a tax cut of slightly less than 1 percent of Federal
revenues over that 5-year period. Now the average person pays about 40
percent of his or her income in taxes and another 10 percent in
government regulatory costs, at a minimum. So today you have one spouse
working to support the government while the other spouse works to
support the family.
I know the President said in Buffalo that he could not support a tax
decrease because the American people would not spend it wisely. I can
say I think they would spend it much more wisely than this wasteful,
inefficient Federal Government that we have today.
Mr. KINGSTON. Following up on the comments of the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), it is amazing that the President would say that
the hard-working people who earn the money cannot spend it as well as
some of the people here in Washington, maybe including the four of us.
But I can say one thing. I believe people can spend their money better
than we can spend their money.
The tax cut that you alluded to last year, it was an $18 billion tax
cut for one year; $18 billion out of a $1.7 trillion budget. It was
just a slither of a slither in this huge $1.7 trillion pot, and it was
killed by the Senate.
Now, the Senate and the White House ganged up on the House to kill
the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act, and I think that it is ridiculous
to have that kind of obstruction to doing something that is common
sense for the tax system. I hope this year that if we pass it that the
other body will find their senses and quit siding with the liberal
White House on everything and act like conservatives and pass tax
reductions.
Mr. SCHAFFER. In the remaining minute, I would ask the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), is there anything he can do to dramatize the
difference between the Democrats and the White House and what they
stand for and the Republican majority in Congress and what we stand
for?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is funny my colleague from Colorado
should ask me that question. Because, just as our good friend from
Tennessee pointed out in paraphrasing the words of our President, Mr.
Speaker, these are the words of the President, if memory serves, one
day, probably less than 12 hours, after he outlined 80 new programs
involving close to 80 new taxes. Mr. Speaker, he said in Buffalo, New
York, and I quote, speaking of the budget surplus, ``We could give it
all back to you and hope you spend it right but,'' closed quote. There,
Mr. Speaker, therein lies a major difference. It comes down to a
question of who do you trust? The President thinks you ought to trust
him to spend your money for you.
We say, if there is ever a choice between Washington bureaucrats and
the American people, Mr. Speaker, then we side with the American
people, because, Mr. Speaker, Americans know best how to save, spend
and invest for themselves and their families. Therein lies a
difference, a difference of freedom and a real contrast between the
politics of fear from those who make outrageous claims about Social
Security and our budgetary process and the true policies of hope that
we embrace with lower taxes, stronger schools, a stronger military and
a real plan to save Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Republican colleagues
who joined me here on the floor tonight to talk about our Republican
vision for America. I want to thank the thousands of constituents who
write to our offices individually virtually on a weekly basis. Their
voice does matter. We are here tonight to assure them that the
Republican majority is listening. It is important for the American
people to express their thoughts and sentiments on whether the
government should continue to grow as the President would propose or
whether the government should be constrained in its growth as the
Republican Party proposes.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The Chair reminds all Members that
it is not in order to cast reflections on the Senate.
____________________
RITALIN AND THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN THE LIVES OF STUDENTS IN NORTHEAST
OHIO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose), I am glad to see the gentleman standing up there.
He looks wonderful.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this great Chamber to talk about a
report recently aired on my local NBC affiliate, News Channel 3. The
report highlighted ritalin and the role this drug now plays in the
lives of students in northeast Ohio. The report raised such concern
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I met with Department
of Education officials today to direct their attention to this problem
and request an investigation into the indiscriminate promotion and use
of this drug and the potential harmful effects.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I believe the decision to
prescribe ritalin to a child should rest with that child's physician
and their parents.
Oftentimes, ritalin is prescribed to address attention deficit
disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It is widely
accepted as the remedy of choice for people who suffer from this brain
disorder. Unfortunately, the medical community has not been able to
develop a definitive test to properly diagnosis ADD or ADHD related
behavior. This oftentimes leads to a misdiagnosis.
The report has highlighted many examples. One, for example, is of Pam
Edwards whose son Romeal attended a Catholic school in my district and
was instructed to have her son use ritalin to address his behavior
problem. In the alternative, her son would not be allowed to return to
the school the next year if she did not. She refused to put him on this
drug because she knew the root of her son's problems resulted from
outside factors instead of an ill-diagnosed case of ADD.
{time} 1800
I am happy to report that Romeal is doing fine in a new school and he
did not need Ritalin. This is a success story, but there are many more
Romeals out there whose parents might not have the insight to seek
alternatives to Ritalin.
ADD or ADHD is a multiple symptom disorder coupled with the fact that
many children exhibit a wide range of behavior that might be attributed
to ADD or ADHD. In actuality it may or may not be that. Kids in fact
will be kids.
ADD or ADHD is defined as a persistent pattern of inattention or
hyperactivity that occurs at four times more frequently in boys than
girls.
When a person has been properly diagnosed with ADD or ADHD and
Ritalin is prescribed, it has a remarkable track record of success.
Oftentimes the drug is viewed as a godsend
[[Page 3291]]
by parents and teachers alike because its effect is dramatic once
prescribed to people who are hyperactive or easily distracted as a way
to focus their minds, calm down and improve their attention spans.
Recently, at the urging of the National Institutes of Health, medical
experts from around the country convened a panel discussion with
doctors to address how Ritalin is being used in our society.
The use of Ritalin is not only a medical concern but it also is a big
business. 1.3 million children take Ritalin regularly and sales of the
drug topped $350 million in 1995.
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the number of
prescriptions for this drug has increased by over 600 percent in the
last 5 years. To address this concern, manufacturers sent letters to
doctors and pharmacists warning them to exert greater control over the
drug.
No, I am not pointing fingers at the teachers or administrators
because I know that they are one of America's greatest treasures. I am
not pointing fingers at doctors or psychologists, but there appears to
be a trend in my district, and I would guess the 11th Congressional
District of Ohio is not unique in the use of Ritalin for behavioral
purposes.
Nearly half a million prescriptions were written for controlled
substances like Ritalin in 1995 for children between the ages of 3 and
6. The percentage of children with an ADHD diagnosis has jumped from 55
percent in 1989 to 75 percent in 1996. ADHD is estimated to affect 3
percent to 5 percent of children aged 5 to 14 years old, or about 1.9
million youngsters. About 10 million prescriptions were written in
1996. According to the IMS Health Association, 13.9 million
prescriptions of stimulants, including Ritalin, were dispensed to
children during the last school year, an 81.2 percent increase from 7.7
million 5 years earlier.
There is not a set guideline for diagnosing ADD or ADHD. No studies
have been conducted in children younger than 4 years. For example, in
Chicago, one of the ways that they have begun to deal with the issue is
a public school system will address ADHD by offering teaching
techniques.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for
assisting me and supporting me in this effort.
____________________
IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING THE NATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
On Ritalin Prescriptions
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin with the comments that I came
to make tonight, I would like to say that I think the previous speaker
has pointed out some very important things about the prescriptions of
Ritalin in this country. I remember a few months ago reading in the
Knoxville News-Sentinel that a retired DEA official, in fact I think he
was second in command of the DEA at one time who now has retired to
east Tennessee, he wrote an article pointing out that our medical
community was prescribing Ritalin at over six times the rate of any
other industrialized nation. I think there is a serious question as to
whether or not that very serious drug, that very serious controlled
substance has been overprescribed in this country, and I think we need
to be very, very careful with that and make sure that it is not being
used in cases where particularly small children and particularly small
boys might simply be a little more active or rambunctious than some
others. I do raise that cautionary note.
Administration Proposed Spending
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to comment about the last
comments of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) who mentioned the
some 80 new programs that the President proposed in his State of the
Union address. The National Taxpayers Union put out a report saying
that those programs if all were enacted would cost us $288.4 billion in
the first year. Newsweek had an even more interesting table a few weeks
ago and had a chart which showed that if we enacted all of those
programs that the President proposed, that it would lead to a $2.3
trillion shortfall in the first 15 years. We have a good economy now
but if we do something like that and allow at least a $2.3 trillion
shortfall to accumulate over these next 15 years, we could not pay the
Medicare bills, we could not pay the Social Security bills, we could
not do many of the most important things that the people of this
country want us to do.
I rise though, Mr. Speaker, today to speak on several unrelated but
very important issues facing this Nation right at this time. First, we
are bombing Iraq and sending troops to Kosovo without votes by the
Congress to do so. We still have troops in Bosnia in 1999 even though
the President originally promised that they would stay in Bosnia no
longer than the end of 1996. Yes, 1996. A few years ago, as I have
mentioned before on this floor, the front page of the Washington Post
had a story reporting that our troops in Haiti were picking up garbage
and settling domestic disputes. Then about a year ago, I heard another
Member of this body say that we had our troops in Bosnia, among other
things, giving rabies shots to dogs. Certainly none of us have anything
against the Haitians or the Bosnians. We want to try to help them, but
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that most Americans believe that the Haitians
should pick up their own garbage and the Bosnians should give their own
rabies shots. We have spent billions and billions of hard-earned tax
dollars in recent years in Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia and Somalia, and now
in Kosovo we are going to be spending more, trying to settle or end
ethnic or religious conflicts that have gone on in many cases for
hundreds of years. We have spent several billions, and I am saying
billions with a B, over the last few months in Iraq bombing people that
our leaders tell us are not our enemies. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless,
mentally ill dictator who apparently has killed many people in order to
stay in power. I would agree with any bad thing you wanted to say about
Hussein. In fact, I voted for the bill at the end of the last Congress
to spend $100 million to try to help remove him. Eight years ago I
voted for the original Gulf War. But at that time Hussein had moved
against another country, Kuwait, and he was threatening others. He had
what at that time was considered to be the most powerful military in
the Middle East, although we now know that his military strength had
been greatly exaggerated or overestimated. But we had to stop Hussein
from moving throughout the Middle East and taking over several other
countries.
Now, though, his military was almost wiped out by the earlier war. He
had been greatly weakened even further by the years of economic
embargoes and sanctions since then. Hussein did not move against us or
anyone else this time or even threaten to do so. We justify this
bombing by alleging that Iraq had weapons or has weapons of mass
destruction but they were weapons that U.N. inspectors did not find.
Also, several countries have weapons of mass destruction, including us
and most of our strongest allies. We cannot bomb everyone or every
nation which has a weapon of mass destruction.
Robert Novak, the nationally syndicated columnist, called this war
against Iraq a phony war. He is correct, but unfortunately it is a
phony war that is costing U.S. taxpayers billions, billions that we
could be using for many better purposes.
Former Congressman and Cabinet Secretary Jack Kemp said this: ``The
bombing is wrong, it's unjustified, and it must stop. The Iraqi people
have done nothing to America or Great Britain to warrant the dropping
of bombs in Baghdad.''
U.S. News & World Report said: ``Displays of American military might
often leave the rest of the world puzzled, and this one was
particularly discomfiting to both the usual carpers and friends. People
spread around the world were left to wonder, like many Americans,
whether this was a justified attack, or just a tack, by an American
President desperate to forestall impeachment.''
[[Page 3292]]
We are basically bombing a defenseless nation, and most Americans do
not even feel like we are at war. It is unbelievable that we are
dropping bombs on people and not even giving it a second thought.
After the President's apology last August was such a monumental flop,
he then ordered bombs to be dropped on Afghanistan and the Sudan, some
people felt, to draw attention away from his personal problems. We now
know from national press reports that we bombed a medicine factory and
other civilian locations.
Also, we know that the President rushed into that bombing without
notifying the Joint Chiefs of Staff or even the head of the FBI who is
usually notified of actions against terrorists.
Also, the Sudan and Afghanistan bombings were done over the
objections of the Attorney General. Now most people do not even
remember that we did those bombings last August. Now we are bombing
once again a country that cannot take one hostile or overt step against
us and did not even threaten to do so. We are making enemies all over
this world out of people who want to be our friends.
We started this latest Iraqi bombing on the eve of impeachment
proceedings in the House, once again very questionable timing. We found
out later from U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter that the UNSCOM
report had been rigged with the White House in a lame attempt to try to
justify the bombing.
The Christian Science Monitor, one of our leading national
newspapers, and a newspaper, I might say, that usually supports the
President, reported a few days ago that there are conflicts, fighting
going on right now in 46 different locations around the world. Are we
going to send troops to all 46? Are we going to send troops into every
country? Obviously we cannot do this. It would cost far too many
billions, and even our wasteful Federal Government does have some
limits.
Right now our young people and many others are concerned about the
future of Social Security. We really do not know how we will pay the
staggering medical bills of the future. At a time when both air
passenger traffic and air cargo traffic are shooting way up and all
economic development is so tied into aviation, the President's budget
is cutting aviation spending by several billion by reducing the Airport
Improvement Program and eliminating the general fund contribution to
the FAA. Yet we are spending billions to turn our military into
international social workers.
We should try to be friends with every nation in the world, but we
should not mortgage our own future in the process. We should send
advisers in every field to help other nations which want us to do that.
But we cannot continue sending billions and billions every time some
other nation has a serious problem. Also, where there is an
international tragedy of some sort, we need to quickly convene a
meeting and ask Sweden and Germany and France and Japan and all other
nations how much they will contribute. Right now we are carrying far
too much of these burdens on our shoulders alone.
And we basically are following a CNN foreign policy. We seem to get
involved in a big way in whichever situation is being given the most
prominence at the moment on the national news. Now we are going into
Kosovo against the recommendations of former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, columnist Charles Krauthammer and many, many others.
George Washington in his farewell address warned us against
entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Dwight
Eisenhower, a career military man, warned us against the military-
industrial complex.
Why are we doing these things? Why are we attempting to be the
world's policeman? Why are we so eager to drop bombs and doing so in
such a cavalier, even careless manner?
Part of it involves money, the military-industrial complex that
President Eisenhower warned us about. Eisenhower believed, and I
believe, that national defense is one of the most important and most
legitimate functions of our national government. But some leaders of
the military, now that most Cold War threats have diminished, are
desperately searching for military missions so that their
appropriations will not be cut. How else can you explain such eagerness
to send troops or to drop bombs on countries which are no threat
whatsoever to our national security and where no vital U.S. interest is
at stake? Those should be the key tests, whether our national security
or whether a vital U.S. interest is at stake. Certainly that is not
present in Kosovo or many of these other places where we have gone and
where we have spent so many billions in recent years.
Then, too, I think we are doing it in part because of the psychology
of power and of human beings. Most men when they are running for
President want that position more than anything they have ever wanted.
But I think they soon become dissatisfied with running only the United
States and then start wanting more. They want to be seen as world
statesmen, great leaders of the world, not simply just a great leader
of the U.S. alone. It seems to be human nature to always want more or
something different, and this is especially true of hard-charging,
ambitious, driven people. And these desires, these ambitions are always
encouraged and supported by companies which benefit from billions in
military expenditures, the military-industrial complex about which
Eisenhower warned us.
{time} 1815
Many liberals and big-government types, even some big-government
conservatives, resort to name calling and childish sarcasm against
anyone who opposes spending all these billions overseas. They will not
discuss these issues on the merits but simply dismiss as isolationist
anyone who speaks out against any foreign adventure that they dream up.
Our first obligation though, Mr. Speaker, as the Congress of the
United States, should be to the citizens and taxpayers of the United
States. It should not be to take billions and billions of their money
and spend it on problems in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and on, and on, and
on. What we need are foreign policies that put this Nation and its
people first for a change. What we need is an American-first foreign
policy, even if it is not politically correct or fashionable to say so.
Apparently, many people accept wasting all these billions today
because they think our economy is stronger than it really is. Well, I
might just say a few things about that. Levi Strauss has just announced
that it is moving 6,000 more jobs to other countries. Last year, that
company closed its largest facility in my hometown of Knoxville; and
2,200 people lost their jobs.
Last year was a record layoff in this country, a record year in this
country for layoffs. Personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high, 1.4
million this past year alone. Our trade deficit hit a record 170
billion which means conservatively, according to the economists, we
lose at least 20,000 jobs per billion, 3.4 million jobs, 3,400,000 jobs
to other countries.
Many college graduates today cannot find jobs except in restaurants,
and certainly there is nothing wrong with working in a restaurant, but
you hope that people who get bachelors and masters degrees from
colleges can find something a little better than that.
Our trade deficit with Japan reached 64 billion. The deficit with
China was 57 billion, 57 billion. This is the same China that funneled
millions in campaign contributions to influence the last presidential
election.
The President has done several things, this administration has done
several things, that will be very harmful for this Nation for many
years long after he has left office and the administration has left
office, when the problems that have been caused will be blamed on
someone else. One involves the Chinese. The President ordered the sale
of missile technology to the Chinese unbelievably over the objections
of the State Department, the Defense Department and the Justice
Department. Now the Chinese have, according to our intelligence
reports, at least 13 nuclear warheads aimed at the U.S., missiles they
could not have gotten
[[Page 3293]]
here without the technology that millions of campaign contributions
apparently got for them. Some apparently came from top executives of
the Hughes Electronic Corporation, which sold some of this technology
to the Chinese.
Now the Chinese have missiles pointed at Taiwan, our ally that we
have a legal obligation to defend. We will now have to spend billions,
extra billions, in the years ahead to defend against this Chinese
threat, the same Chinese who are eating our lunch in trade to the tune
of a $57 billion trade deficit with that country alone last year.
Nations like China at 57 billion, I might repeat, would be 1.4
million jobs, 1,400,000 jobs lost from this country to China last year
because of that trade deficit. Nations like China, like Japan, nations
all over this world need access to our markets far more than we need
theirs. We need free trade, but it needs to be free in both directions,
and we have economic leverage that we have not used in recent years
because we have not put our own country first. We need trade policies
that put America and its workers first even if our President and the
national media and multinational businesses do not agree.
Another example of how the President's policy will hurt people for
many years to come is the decision to lock up the largest low-sulfur
coal deposit in the world in Utah, once again apparently in return for
hundreds of thousands or possibly millions in campaign contributions
from the Riady family of Indonesia, the owners of the second-largest
low-sulfur coal deposit. Because our utilities are required to buy
mostly low-sulfur coal, people all over this Nation will have to pay
higher utility bills for years because of a political decision done in
secret which had the double whammy effect of gaining huge campaign
contributions and pleasing environmental extremists.
That brings me to another but related point. Environmental extremists
are the new radicals, the new socialists, the new leftists in this
country today. Many people do not realize how extreme many of them have
become. They almost always, these environmental extremists almost
always come from wealthy or upper middle income backgrounds and usually
have sufficient wealth to insulate themselves from the harm they do to
the poor and working people of this country. Everyone wants clean air
and clean water, but some of these environmental extremists are not
satisfied that we have the toughest clean air and clean water laws and
other tough environmental laws, the toughest in the world. They
constantly demand more, often supported by large contributions from
many of our biggest corporations.
And I might say that the administration is trying to convince us to
enter into the Kyoto agreement. Well, the Kyoto agreement is really
just an attempt by some people that are upset that we have only 4
percent, a little over 4 percent of the world's population, yet we have
about 25 percent of the world's wealth, and they want do a massive
transfer of that wealth to other less developed countries. And so there
is something like 125 less developed countries who do not have to
participate and abide by the Kyoto agreement, but we have to.
And if we go through with that, if the Senate was to ratify that or
if we try to go through the back door and enact all the Kyoto protocols
in appropriations bills and in various other ways through regulations,
we will destroy so many thousands of jobs in this country and drive up
prices, and once again the people that will be hurt the most will be
the poor and working people of this country.
I mentioned that many of these environmental extremists are supported
by some of our biggest corporations. The big corporations can comply
with all the rules and regulations and red tape. They have the money
and the staff and the lobbyists and the political connections to do so.
And what happens? The big keep getting bigger and the small and now
even the medium-sized business struggle to survive or go by the
wayside.
When I was growing up, a poor man could start a gas station. Now,
primarily due to all the environmental and governmental regulatory
overkill, only the wealthy or big corporations can do it. Environmental
extremists destroy jobs and opportunities, drive up prices and in the
process become the best friends extremely big businesses have ever had.
There is a big move now to cut down on agricultural run-off or spill-
off. Here again the regulations are making it even harder for small
farmers to survive while big corporate farms, agra-business really, can
benefit by seeing much of their competition with small farmers removed.
Big government in the end, Mr. Speaker, has really helped primarily
extremely big businesses and the bureaucrats who work for the Federal
Government, and that is really all they have. The poor and the working
people in this country and the small business people and the small
farmers get the shaft. Everyone else gets the shaft. The intended
beneficiaries get a few crumbs from most programs, but more jobs would
be created and prices would be lower if more government money was left
in the private sector.
In fact, government money does create jobs, but money left in the
private sector creates on the average about two and one half times as
many jobs. Why? The private sector, especially small business, is
simply less wasteful and more efficient in their spending. They have to
be to survive.
Edward Rendell, the Democratic mayor of Philadelphia, said in a
congressional hearing a few years ago, quote:
Government does not work because there is no incentive for
people to work hard, so many do not. There is no incentive
for people to save money, so much of it is squandered.
How true that statement is.
The easiest thing in the world, Mr. Speaker, is to spend other
people's money. Also, when it comes to politicians, usually those who
proclaim their compassion the loudest usually have the least with their
own personal money.
Talk about the efficiency of the private sector. I had the privilege
of meeting a few days ago with the head of Embraer, a Brazilian company
that produces regional jets. He said that when Embraer was a government
corporation in late 1994, it was producing $40,000 of product per
employee. The company privatized in December of 1994 and now produces
$240,000 per employee, six times as much in just a little over 4 years.
When speaking of the great benefits of a private, free-enterprise
economy, we should remember that private property is one of the keys,
one of the foundation stones of prosperity. Today, however, the Federal
Government owns over 30 percent of the land in this country, and State
and local governments and quasi-governmental units own another 20
percent. Approximately half the land today is in some type of
government control, and the really worrisome thing is the rapid rate at
which governments at all levels are taking on even more.
In addition, governments are putting more and more restrictions on
what private land owners can do with their own land, taking away or
putting limitations on a very important part of our freedom. They also,
if they take over much more land, will drive out of reach for many
young Americans a big part of the American dream, and that is to own
their own homes. Once again, much of this is done or accepted in this
misguided worship of the environment, leading to a very great expansion
of government control over our lives.
Some environmental extremists even advocate something called the
Wildlands Project, which has the goal of turning 50 percent of the
United States into wilderness where it is not already designated that
way. This may sound good on the surface, but it would require moving
millions of people out of their homes and off of land that they
presently own.
People take better care of land they personally own than they do of
property that is publicly owned. Look at the big city housing projects
that have had to be blown up after just 15 or 20 years because no one
felt the pride of ownership, and the properties deteriorated
unbelievably fast.
[[Page 3294]]
We would be better off and could sustain a good economy far longer if
we had more land in private ownership and less in public or government
control. Yet we are going very rapidly in the opposite direction, and
our wonderful environmental extremists fight the Federal government
giving up even one acre of land. They want more and more and more.
What an environmentalist should realize is that the socialist and
communist nations have been the worst polluters in the world. Their
economic systems did not give people incentives or put pressure on them
to conserve and instead really encouraged or at least did not prevent
wasteful use of resources.
Also, our environmentalist should realize that only capitalist free
market economies can produce the excess funds necessary to do the good
things for the environment that we all want done. Environmental
extremists have done such a good job in recent years brainwashing young
people that I bet very few even realize that we have far more land in
forests in the U.S. today than we did 50 years ago or that forests, to
remain healthy, some trees need to be cut.
When control of Congress changed, and I will talk about the economy
again for a minute, when control of the Congress changed hands in
November of 1994, the stock market was at 3800. Today, the Dow Jones
average is almost at 9400. The economy has done well for several
reasons, among which are we reformed the welfare system against two
presidential vetoes and several million people are now contributing and
paying in rather than taking out. Also, the Congress brought Federal
spending under control by passing a balanced budget, once again against
three presidential vetoes, but at least we brought Federal spending
under control.
There is a misunderstanding or misimpression among some that we have
cut Federal spending. Federal spending has gone up each year. It is
just that instead of giving, as we routinely were, just 8 or 10 years
ago giving 10 and 12 and 15 and 18 percent increases to almost every
department and agency, we are now giving 2 or 3 percent increases.
{time} 1830
We have Federal spending under control. Also the Federal Reserve has
acted in a very conservative manner, and we have reduced the capital
gains tax and stopped the trend towards higher and higher Federal
taxes.
However, Federal taxes are still far too high. They are taking more
of our GDP than at any time in the last 55 years since World War II. As
I mentioned a few minutes ago in the colloquy with some of my
colleagues on the Floor, today the average person, not the wealthy but
the average person, is paying about 40 percent of his or her income in
taxes of all types, Federal, State, and local, and at least another 10
percent in government regulatory costs.
One member of the other body said not too long ago that one spouse
works to support government while the other spouse works to support the
family. Yet, the President said in Buffalo recently, as we quoted here
earlier, that we cannot give the people a tax cut because they would
not spend it wisely. They would do a far better job, Mr. Speaker,
spending it than our wasteful, inefficient Federal Government would.
One example, and I could give many today, the Federal Government
spends about $26,000 per year per student in the Job Corps program.
Most of this money goes to fat cat government contractors and
bureaucrats, so these students would be shocked to know that we are
spending this much on them each year. But we could give each of these
students a $1,000 a month allowance, send them to some expensive
private school, and still save money, and the young people involved
would probably feel like they had won the lottery.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me spend a few minutes discussing one topic
of great importance. Before I get into this final topic, let me just
give another example of how harmful all of this overtaxation and over
government spending has hurt the American people, and particularly,
American families.
Before I came to Congress I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court
judge trying felony criminal cases. About 96 or 97 percent of those
people plead guilty in the criminal courts throughout the country. Then
they apply for probation. So I received, in that 7\1/2\ years, several
thousand reports going into the backgrounds of all of these defendants.
The first day I was judge, Gary Tulick, the chief probation counselor
for East Tennessee, told me that 98 percent of the defendants in felony
cases came from broken homes. I would read over and over and over and
over again reports like, defendant's father left home to get pack of
cigarettes and never came back. Defendant's father left home when
defendant was 2 and never returned.
I know that many wonderful people have come from broken homes, but I
also know that, particularly with young boys, that the breakup of a
home has had an extremely harmful effect on many young boys.
I saw a report in the Washington Times a few years ago in which two
leading criminologists had studied 11,000 felony cases from around the
country. They said the biggest single factor in serious crime, bar
none, nothing else was even close, was father-absent households. How
true that is.
In 1950 the Federal Government was taking about 4 percent from the
average family, and State and local governments were taking another 4
percent, roughly. Many women had the choice of staying at home to raise
their children, and many families were able to stay together, because
most marriages--I saw one study which showed that 59 percent of all
marriages break up in arguments over finances. That is the biggest
single factor, disagreements about money.
But today, and for many years, the government at all levels has been
taking so much money from the families of America that I think it has
caused many serious problems. Many families I think have not been able
to stay together or have ended up getting in serious disputes that have
led to divorces and the breakup of families because government at all
levels has been taking so much money from them.
I believe that the best thing we could do to lower the incidence of
serious crime in this country would be to greatly decrease the size and
cost of the government at all levels, so that the families of this
country could keep more of their own money to spend on their children
in the ways that they see fit and that they know are best for them and
their children.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me talk on one last topic for a few
minutes, discussing something that is of great importance to everyone.
That is health care.
Today health care is the only thing all of us pay for through a
third-party payer system. If we bought food through a third-party payer
system, millions would be starving. If we bought cars through a third-
party payer system, a Yugo probably would have cost us $300,000.
Before the Federal Government got into medical care in a big way in
the mid sixties, medical costs were low and flat for many years. A lot
of young people ought to look at that, and look back and see how low
and flat medical costs were for all those years that the Federal
Government stayed out of it. But when the Federal Government got into
it in a big way in the mid sixties, we took what was a very minor
problem for a very few people and turned it into a major problem for
everyone.
I remember in the late seventies when the liberals were saying
Medicaid would save the medical system. Four or five years ago the
Washington Post ran a series of front page stories about Medicaid. A
member of the other body, Senator Rockefeller, who I think was one of
the people who helped found the Medicaid system, was quoted as saying
about Medicaid, ``It is a horrible system, a vile system, and it ought
to be abolished.''
A scholar from the Brookings Institution said about it, ``It is a
success story of the American political system. We create a system so
horrible that we are forced to go to total reform.''
[[Page 3295]]
I was told yesterday by one of the leaders of the Tennessee
legislature that TennCare, our replacement or reform of Medicaid, will
go up 12 percent this year, and maybe as much as 15 or 20 percent a
year in future years. If it does, we would be in a catastrophic
situation. Third-party payer systems are inevitably doomed to failure.
They will never work. In any politicized medical system, those who are
the best organized or most politically powerful get rich, but it is a
disaster for everyone else.
In recent years we have seen some doctors, nursing home operators,
big home health care operators, and big hospital chain owners get rich,
but we have turned health care into a major problem for everyone except
possibly Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
In a private free market system, we get much more fairness and we do
not have the big winners and even bigger losers that we have in a
politicized big government medical system.
In fact, the main point of what I have been saying here tonight is
just that. Poor and working people can get lower prices and many more
job opportunities and have much better lives in a true free market
system than in any other way.
If Members do not believe that, all they have to do is look around
the world. I remember in the former Soviet Union the leaders of the
former Soviet Union had, before their total collapse that they are
undergoing right now, they had their dachas by the sea and their
limousines and their special department stores. Other people, which was
the great, great majority, 99-plus percent of the people, had to line
up for hours to buy, say, a pound of sausage, or something that we run
into a store for and take for granted as being able to purchase.
Every place in the world where the people have let the government get
too big, people have ended up starving. It really is pretty simple, Mr.
Speaker. Big government means a very small elite upper class, a huge
underclass, and almost no middle class. A very small government means a
very small elite, a huge middle class, and very few at the bottom.
We really should pay for medical care the same way that we pay for
food. Then it would be cheap. If we could get the government and the
insurance companies out of medical care, medical costs probably would
not even be 5 percent of what they are. However, too many doctors and
nursing home owners and health care providers are getting rich off the
system the way it is today to get the government and the insurance
companies out.
So since we cannot realistically do that, the only real hope is to go
to a medical savings account or medical voucher system to get the
consumer involved once again, to give people some incentives to shop
around for medical care.
Right now we are distorting the law of supply and demand, because the
number of doctors is going way up but so are the costs. We need to get
at least some free market incentives into the system, because we are
headed for a collapse within our medical system if we do not. Then the
people will start demanding, if we let it collapse, they will start
demanding national government-run health care, which is the worst of
all worlds, as has been shown in country after country all over this
world. Then we would end up with shortages, waiting periods, rationing,
the closing of many small and rural hospitals, people having to go
further and further distances for health care, a rapid decline in the
quality of care, and on and on.
If the government had not gotten into medical care to the extent it
already has, we never would have had HMOs and people being kicked out
of hospitals way too early, or denied treatment in the first place.
We need major reform in medical care, Mr. Speaker, but if we give
even more government control and involvement, the system will become
even more expensive as it grows worse and worse. The few will get rich
and the many will suffer, as with any and every big government program.
____________________
AMERICA'S BIGGEST SOCIAL PROBLEM: ILLEGAL NARCOTICS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House tonight and the
American public to talk about a problem which I believe is our biggest
social problem as a country, our biggest social problem as a Congress.
That is the problem of illegal narcotics and the damage it is doing to
our population, and particularly to our young people across this land.
Some people in Congress or some people in leadership positions would
have us think that the Y2K problem is the major problem, or that other
dotting I and crossing T of legislation is the major problem facing
Congress. But I believe that we have no more important responsibility
as legislators of this Nation than to see that we do the best job
possible in addressing a problem, an epidemic that is ravaging havoc,
particularly among our young people.
The statistics are mind-boggling. Last year over 14,200 Americans
lost their lives because of drug-related deaths. Let me cite a few
other statistics that every Member of Congress and every American
should be aware of, when they turn away from the question of a drug
problem, when they are given some other problem, smoking or Y2K or
whatever the issue of the day may be that rates in the polls. Let me
talk about the hard facts of what illegal narcotics are doing to us as
a Nation.
The overall number of past month heroin users increased 378 percent
from 1993 to 1997 in this country. Between 1992 and 1997, drug-related
emergency room episodes nationwide increased 25 percent, and they
increased 7 percent between 1996 and 1997. Between 1993 and 1997, LSD
emergency room incidents increased 142 percent; not declined, but
inclined.
Additionally, from 1993 to 1997, our youth aged 12 to 17 using drugs
has more than doubled. It has increased 120 percent. There has been a
27 percent increase between 1996 and 1997. This is a 1998 national
household survey.
In 1998, more than three-quarters, actually 7 percent, of our high
school teens reported that drugs are sold or kept at their schools, an
increase of 6 percent over 1996.
During 1997, statistically significant increases in heroin emergency
room incidents were observed in Miami, a 77 percent increase; in New
Orleans, a 63 percent increase; in Phoenix, a 49 percent increase; and
in Chicago, a 47 percent increase.
Let me also add this statistic. Significant increases in
methamphetamine, speed, emergency room incidents were observed in
Detroit, a 233 percent increase; Seattle, a 207 percent increase;
Atlanta, a 151 percent increase; and St. Paul, Minneapolis, 110 percent
increase.
Mr. Speaker, we have, as a result, 1.8 million Americans behind bars,
and the estimates are 60 to 70 percent of those Americans behind bars
are there because of a drug-related offense. What is absolutely
staggering is the cost of all of this to the American taxpayers. Let me
tell the Members, from the drug czar's office in a recent report, what
the cost is to the American taxpayers.
{time} 1845
American taxpayers footed a $150 billion bill for drug-related
criminal and medical costs in 1997 alone. That is more than what we set
in our 1997 Federal budgets for our programs to fund education,
transportation improvements, agriculture, energy, space and all foreign
aid combined. That is the cost to this Nation.
One of the most staggering statistics, and I have quoted this before
on the floor of the House of Representatives, is that our young people,
our kids from age 12 to 15, in this population range, first-time heroin
use, which has proven to kill, deadly heroin, surged a whopping 875
percent from 1991 to 1996.
Mr. Speaker, what concerns me as someone from a wonderful district in
central Florida, my district runs from
[[Page 3296]]
Orlando to Daytona Beach, is not just the national statistics, the
national impact, the national lives that are lost, but the local
devastation that this problem has imposed on my rather affluent, good
economy, highly educated population. A wonderful placid area.
Mr. Speaker, every time I pick up the paper, and here is the latest
newspaper, another individual, this one the latest, a death of a woman,
age 38, died of a heroin overdose this weekend in central Florida. And
this is in addition to another young man who died a horrible death, the
sheriff told me, in a central Florida restroom of a heroin overdose.
A recent headline in my area newspapers stated that drug overdose
deaths exceeded homicides, and most of these were heroin, a very deadly
drug which has come across our border and into our streets in record
numbers.
Now, how did we get ourselves into this situation? Let us go back to
1993 when the Clinton administration took over and they had a majority
in both this House and the other body. What did they do? They changed
our national drug policy.
Under the Reagan administration, and I was there, I worked as a
staffer for Senator Hawkins in the 1980s, there were many initiatives
adopted by Congress that tried to get a handle on the national and
international drug problem that at that time was facing Florida and our
country. What we did was a number of things. First, we tried to stop
drugs at their source. Then we created an Andean Strategy, eradication
of crops of coca and heroin at their source.
We also tried to interdict drugs using the military, using whatever
means we had available, our Coast Guard, to stop drugs before they got
into our border. And then we tried tough enforcement.
What happened in that period of time, from 1992 to 1995, is that the
Clinton administration made a policy decision to cut some of those
programs. They cut interdiction from $2 billion to $1.2 billion in
1995. So, they went down 37 percent in the period from 1992 to 1995.
The international programs to stop drugs at their source, the Andean
Strategy, stopping drugs by eradicating the drugs and by crop
substitution programs and other programs that stop drugs as they were
being produced in the fields, was cut from $633 million to $289 million
in 1996, a 54 percent decrease.
These are the figures. Let me put these up here. Again, a 37 percent
decrease in drugs interdiction budgets and the source country programs,
the international programs. These are the exact figures, a 53 percent
decrease.
So what happened there? We had, in fact, a flood of drugs coming into
this country. For example, with those decisions came some
administrative decisions and let me cite some of those again that took
place in the period of 1994 and 1995.
National Guard container searches using the military to help in the
war on drugs dropped from 237 in 1994 to 209 in 1995. Other National
Guard workday drug interdictions fell from 597 in 1994 to 530 in 1996.
Drug interdiction budget and asset cuts in the Department of Defense
in 1995. The flight hours devoted to counterdrug missions was decreased
from 51,000 to 50,000 in one year, and also shipdays active in drug
interdiction were cut from 2,268 in 1994 to 1,545 in 1995.
As a result, we have seen a flood of illegal narcotics coming into
the United States. Additionally, there were some policies at that time
that did incredible damage to us as a Nation. In addition to the source
country decreases, in addition to drug interdiction cuts in the
activities of the military, the administration first out cut the office
of the drug czar and the drug czar's budget.
The next really offensive move by the administration was to appoint a
Surgeon General who sent a message to our young people of ``Just say
maybe.'' Additionally, what hurt us tremendously in the effort to
curtail cocaine production, coca production and also heroin production,
was the abolition and the decision by the administration to stop a
shootdown policy. We had provided information and assistance to South
American countries, primarily Peru, Bolivia and Colombia, which were
engaged in trying to curtail illegal narcotics trafficking and we
provided them some information and assistance. A liberal decision out
of one of our agencies stopped that type of assistance and, in turn,
there was a period in which this shootdown policy was shot down by this
administration, and it took a concerted effort and over a year to get
that put back in place. We have done that.
And, of course, they took the military out and cut the Coast Guard
budgets, so we saw a flood of illegal narcotics coming into this
country.
During the period from 1995 onward in the country of Colombia,
another administrative action did a great deal of damage. It was the
policy of Congress, and we passed laws, we passed appropriations,
asking that assistance go to Colombia. Because of concern of human
rights violations, because of other problems with the last
administration in Colombia, the administration basically stopped
getting helicopters to Colombia, getting resources to Colombia, getting
assistance to stop the production of coca and also heroin poppies in
that country.
What has happened in the meantime is an incredible flood of coca
cultivation. In fact, the subcommittee which I chair recently visited
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico and Panama, and I will report on that
in just a minute. One of the things that we found that was most
startling was that now Colombia produces more cocaine than any other
country in the world. It formerly was a processing center for cocaine
and now is a producer.
This policy, again from the 1993 to 1995, 1996 period of the
administration, basically shut down our efforts and our assistance to
Colombia to stop illegal narcotics cultivation, so we have cocaine
major production there.
Additionally, we had an incredible flood of heroin coming out of
Colombia. It is coming up through the Caribbean into Florida and it is
also coming up through and transiting through Mexico, working with the
Mexican cartels.
So these are the results of a failed policy that this administration
adopted some years ago. The death in our streets, the dramatic increase
in heroin on our streets. That cultivation is there for a reason. It is
specifically because of a failed policy.
Now, recently I received, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, a presentation by the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. The 1999 proposed drug control
strategy, and also the budget for this administration.
I have raised some great concerns about this budget and this
strategy. This is a strategy for losing. This is not a war on drugs.
This is a mild effort to eliminate some drug trafficking, some drug
production. I believe that we can expedite what is proposed in this
strategy. I believe there are some fundamental flaws in what has been
proposed by the administration and this is a losing strategy and a
losing budget and we certainly should have learned from the past.
First of all, the most effective way to stop drugs are to eliminate
drugs at their source. If one cannot grow coca, they cannot produce
cocaine. There have traditionally only been two countries that have
produced cocaine in large quantities: Bolivia and Peru. Both of those
countries, where we visited and met with the presidents of those
countries, have committed within the last 2 or 3 years, working
primarily with this new majority in Congress, to eradicate drugs at
their source. Very cost-effective. Very few dollars spent.
Now, we learned through the budget that was proposed from 1991 to
1995 how not to do things and it is amazing that this new budget by
this administration does not address proper funding for the
microherbicide program. That is a program to eliminate drugs through a
chemical process, conducting the R&D to deal biologically with the
production of coca and other hard drugs such as heroin and poppies.
Did we not learn that when we cut Customs and interdiction and do not
[[Page 3297]]
properly fund them that drugs come from where they are grown to the
next stage? Again, the President's budget, the President's strategy is
lacking in adequate funding to provide the resources necessary to stop
drugs at their next stage. And each of these stages I view as cost-
effective frontiers in this effort.
Once we get to the streets, once we get to local enforcement, it is
extremely expensive and costly in lost lives and enforcement to try to
catch those drugs when they are in our schools and in our communities
and with our young people.
This budget by this administration also fails to address one of the
most fundamental needs, and that is that we have proper intelligence,
adequate intelligence. If I have learned anything in this war on
illegal drugs, it is that intelligence is so important, particularly in
enforcement and interdiction and even eradication. If we know where the
drugs are, if we know who is dealing the drugs, if we have the proper
intelligence, we can save lives. Again we can cost-effectively stop
traffickers in pursuit of their deadly profession purveying, again,
heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines and other hard drugs.
So, not spending the adequate resources or funding for intelligence
is lacking in the President's strategy and in the drugs czar's proposal
to Congress.
{time} 1900
Once again, we have seen the cuts for the Coast Guard that the
administration made, and I cited some of those just a few minutes ago,
that were mistakes and will be mistakes in this budget. So they have
not adequately funded the operations of the Coast Guard.
Let me give an illustration in central Florida. Some of the heroin
that we have coming into central Florida has transited through Puerto
Rico. Why through Puerto Rico? This is a new pattern in the last 5, 6
years. Because back in 1995, this administration and the years before
that, several years before that cut the Coast Guard operations almost
50 percent.
The Coast Guard is the line of defense around Puerto Rico and has
kept that secure, again, through the 1980s and early 1990s from drugs
transiting through there. That Guard was let down. Here again, an
incredible error on the part of the administration and the drug czar's
office.
The President's strategy, if you call it a strategy, is to let down
the funding for the Coast Guard for operation and maintenance, one of
the most important ingredients for success.
Finally, properly funding U.S.-Mexico border security. Now if we know
that 60 to 70 percent of the hard drugs coming into the United States
are coming in through Mexico, transiting through Mexico, then we know
where we have a major drug transiting problem. It does not take rocket
science to figure this out. So, again, we have another perimeter of
defense that is not being secured by the proposal of this
administration.
What is of major concern to me is that some of the money in this
budget in big chunks is being spent to correct mistakes and errors. One
of the biggest mistakes and errors that we found in visiting some of
the producing and transiting countries that our subcommittee visited
was in Panama.
In Panama, the United States of America is getting its clock cleaned.
There is no other way to put it. We have been out-negotiated. We have
lost basically our interest in the Panama Canal.
We will be turning over, we will be giving the keys to the Panama
Canal. I wanted to pull out my keys here as an illustration. These are
the keys to the Panama Canal. We will be giving them to Panamanian
officials by December of this year.
What is scary is all of our forward drug reconnaissance efforts are
located in Panama right now as we speak. The administration is
scrambling at this hour because they lost the treaty agreements. They
could not negotiate them. They got to the end. The whole thing
collapsed.
We are turning over $10 billion in assets, 5,000 buildings. We
basically in May have to stop all of our overflights. So they are
scrambling now to find another location, which we asked questions
about, for our forward reconnaissance in the war on drugs.
They will probably be relocated in Ecuador and also in Aruba and that
area as they, again, are working at this point to patch together some
forward reconnaissance operation. Not to mention that we will have to
relocate such assets as AWACS and other reconnaissance equipment and
airplanes from that area.
So the situation in Panama is pure chaos. The situation regarding
even the operation of the ports, we were told that corruption has
dictated how the awards for control of those ports will be determined,
and that the Red Chinese, in fact, will control one of those port
activities and gain that through corrupt activities.
A very scary scene, when it comes to dealing with the Panama Canal,
with the billions of United States dollars invested in that area all
lost. Also, from my perspective, the war on drugs, where we are being
booted out, and at great cost in this budget, as I started to say, one
of the biggest items is moving that operation, which will cost the
taxpayers $73.5 million. I think that is just the tip of the iceberg.
So those are how some of the dollars are being spent in a strategy that
does not make sense.
If you think that the administration would want to spend more than we
spent last year and would come out and say we need to spend more
resources, I am not a big spender, I am one of the lowest spenders in
Congress, but of all of the things we should be spending more money on,
it is this effort, whether it is education and prevention and treatment
and interdiction, law enforcement, but actually from a total spending
of $17.9 billion in last year's full appropriations for this effort to
stem illegal narcotics, the administration drops down to $17.8 million,
109 net million dollars less in spending.
In addition, if we add in the mistakes to correct in Panama, we are
probably looking at $250 million in funds less than we spent the year
before. Additionally, what concerns me is that the administration talks
a good line about helping our communities' education and prevention.
I might say that a Republican Congress added $195 million for the ads
that are now being aired on television for the information program that
is being conducted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and
matched by the private sector.
But, additionally, the administration played games with their
proposal and their budget and their strategy by not funding some of the
programs that we passed. For example, the Drug-Free Communities Act,
they came in $8 million below our authorization and request.
So if we want to do something about drugs in our communities, we have
got to interdict. We have got to educate. We have got to enforce. But
we have to have an honest proposal on the table from the
administration. I do not believe that is the case.
I would like to turn now, to the latest chapter in the war on drugs,
and I will be addressing the Congress and the Nation on a repeated
basis. People may get tired of hearing about it. But, again, since it
has such a big impact on our communities, I will be here talking about
it.
Since the Speaker of the House has given me that responsibility as
chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, I will, again, be bringing this consistently to the
attention of the public and the Congress.
The latest chapter is another sad chapter and mistake. Again, I said
earlier, if we knew where 60 to 70 percent of the drugs were coming
from, we would do something about it. We would target that. Now, we
know where 60 to 70 percent of the drugs are. These are not my figures.
These are the administration's figures, the Office of Drug Control
Policy, the Office of the Chief DEA Administrator of the land. These
are, again, their figures.
We know where hard drugs, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine are coming
[[Page 3298]]
from. They are coming from Mexico. Again, the latest chapter is that,
yesterday, the President of the United States, and last week he said he
was going to do it, but he did it on the deadline, yesterday, March 1,
he certified Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States on the
war on drugs.
Let me say something about the certification process since I helped
draft that with Senator Hawkins back in the mid 1980s, that law. The
law is a simple law. The law says that the State Department shall
review the progress of every country that is involved in narcotics
production and trafficking and determine whether they are fully
cooperating with, eliminating, or helping to reduce drug production and
drug trafficking.
That is what certification is. They must certify honestly, and the
President must present honestly whether a country is cooperating, fully
cooperating, those are the terms of the law, in eliminating drug
production and drug trafficking.
Why are they certifying? They are certifying to make that country
eligible for foreign aid, foreign assistance, foreign trade benefits,
and foreign financial assistance of the United States. These are
benefits of the United States, again, in trade and finance and foreign
aid. So if they are fully cooperating, they are eligible for foreign
aid and foreign assistance.
It is a simple law. The law has been convoluted. The law has not been
properly interpreted by this administration. It certainly has not been
applied appropriately by this President.
The President ironically went to Mexico and met with President
Zedillo several weeks ago. He said Mexico should not be penalized for
having the courage to confront its problems. Now, that is a new
Clinton-speak.
What are the facts about cooperation, full cooperation? What is the
pattern of conduct of officials there in trying to stop production and
stop trafficking.
Let me quote, if I may, the DEA Administrator Tom Constantine who has
great courage, an official of this administration, in charge of our
Federal Drug Enforcement Agency. He testified in a recent Congressional
hearing on the other side of the Congress, and let me quote, ``In my
lifetime, I have never witnessed any group of criminals that has had
such a terrible impact on so many individuals and communities in our
nation,'' Mr. Constantine said. ``They have infiltrated cities and
towns around the United States, visiting upon these places addiction,
misery, increased criminal activities and increased homicides.''
``There is no doubt that those individuals running these organized
criminal drug-trafficking syndicates today are responsible for
degrading the quality of life not only in towns along the Southwest
border of the United States, but increasingly, cities in middle
America.''
This is what the chief law enforcement officer of our Nation said
regarding Mexico's participation. This article further went on to
state, and let me quote this, that ``No major traffickers were indicted
in Mexico last year; drug seizures dropped significantly; fewer drug
laboratories were seized; total arrests declined; the number of drug
cases dropped; and seizures of drug-carrying automobiles, boats, and
trucks also declined.''
Is this a pattern of cooperation? Is this a pattern that deserves
certification so that Mexico is eligible for benefits and foreign
assistance of the United States?
Let me cite from another article and some other statistics about
Mexico's performance. Again, 60 to 70 percent of the cocaine and heroin
that come into the United States come in through Mexico. It is
estimated that 85 percent of the methamphetamine, the foreign
methamphetamine comes in from Mexico. It is produced in Mexico.
Another recent article said that Mexico has increased heroin
production by sixfold in the last 2 years.
{time} 1915
Not only are they transiting hard drugs, they are now becoming a
significant producer of heroin from that country. Chemical precursor
laws are not being enforced in Mexico. Mexican heroin seized in the
United States between 1995 and 1996 quadrupled.
Now, another significant thing, and every American should listen to
this, and every young person who is listening should listen to this,
the purity of the heroin coming into the United States from Mexico and
from these other countries in the last 2 years has jumped from a purity
level of 7 to 20 percent to 50 to 76 percent. That is why we are seeing
so many deaths. That is why we are seeing the destruction of so many
lives, because this is deadly heroin. These are deadly drugs with high
purity and high potency coming into the United States. And any time a
young person or anyone else abuses these drugs and mixes it with
anything else, they risk death and they risk destroying their lives.
Last year, 15 metric tons of heroin came into the United States
through Mexico. We had a 27 percent increase in heroin use in the
United States between 1996 and 1997. So more heroin is coming in, more
heroin is being used, and most of the heroin that we see, again, is
coming through Mexico or now being produced in Mexico.
Now, we are neighbors, we are partners, we are friends. There are
millions of Mexican-Americans in the United States who are good
citizens. We have a long relationship of friendly trade, of finance,
communication, and cultural exchanges between our two countries. I
think the United States, and the Congress in particular, and this
administration, have gone even overboard to extend benefits to Mexico
as a partner, as a friend, as an ally and a neighbor. We have given
probably some of the best trade benefits to Mexico as to any country in
the world.
When Mexico's pesos were faltering and the economy was heading down
the tubes a few years ago, we, as friends and neighbors, went in and
helped bail them out. In return, we heard the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Jimmy Duncan), talk about jobs that are lost in the United States
and lowered opportunity. And what has happened is we have actually
given up much of our trade, much of our manufacturing to Mexico.
We just got the recent figures for 1998, and our trade deficit was
$15.7 billion. That means more goods being sold by Mexico in the United
States, contributing to our whopping trade deficit. So here we are good
friends, we are good allies, and we ask for cooperation, and what do we
get? We get an unbelievable quantity and quality of hard, deadly drugs
coming into our country from Mexico.
Let me again cite the statistics of the cost of drug abuse in this
country. Last year, we had 14,218 Americans, and this is actually last
year. They have the wrong date up here. They were killed last year at a
cost of $67 billion. This is the cost in lives and Americans who will
no longer see the light of day. And if we calculate 60 to 70 percent of
the hard narcotics coming into the United States, we can figure that we
have 8,000 or 9,000 Americans dying from drugs that came in through
Mexico.
I am not the only one that questions the certification of Mexico, and
this should not be a partisan question. Let me, if I may, read a quote
from the minority leader of the House of Representatives. ``After
reviewing the past year's record, I am compelled to disagree with the
President's decision to certify Mexico as fully cooperating with our
government in the fight against drugs.'' And that is the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who said that in a quote last Saturday in the
Dallas Morning News. So, again, there is bipartisan concern about what
is happening with Mexico.
Why that concern? The statistics, again, speak for themselves.
Mexican drug seizures for opium from 1997 to 1998, a 56 percent
reduction in drug seizures. Is this fully cooperating to stop drugs at
their source or as they transit through that country?
Cocaine, a 35 percent reduction in seizures in the period from 1997
to 1998.
And if we want to look at methamphetamine, how it is affecting some
of the heartland of America, about 85 percent of the methamphetamines
in
[[Page 3299]]
Minnesota is smuggled from Mexico. And this is the source, the
Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sunday September 27th of last year. Again,
hard drugs coming in through Mexico; Mexico certified by this
administration.
Finally, the DEA administrator, Tom Constantine, again questioned
what this administration is doing and talked about Mexico. He said,
``The truly significant principals have not been arrested and appear to
be immune from any law enforcement effort.'' So this administration has
certified a country as fully cooperating that, again, is dealing in
death and destruction at every level of our effort to eradicate illegal
narcotics from coming into this country.
Now, what is my role? Again, I chair the House Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on
Government Reform. Today I join my colleague, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who introduced a resolution to decertify Mexico.
I did not sign on that resolution, although I now support that
resolution because of the evidence I have found.
However, the Speaker has asked me and other chair members of the
majority to conduct a thorough review of the drug policy of the
Congress, the drug policy of the Nation and also of the certification
and decertification of Mexico and other countries that are dealing in
illegal narcotics. I, as chairman, intend to conduct that review to see
if drug decertification is the answer, to see what other mechanisms we
can enact to hold Mexico's feet to the fire and other nations who deal
in illegal narcotics and do not make an effort to fully cooperate and
yet receive benefits from the United States Government. So that will be
my task and my responsibility to work with others.
We launch that investigation, that review and that oversight process
tomorrow. One of the subcommittees of the Committee on International
Relations will begin tomorrow looking at the drug policy issue in Latin
America. We know, again, that almost all of the heroin coming into the
United States, the huge quantities of heroin, comes from Colombia and
is also produced in Mexico and transits to the United States. We know
that cocaine is produced in Peru and coca in Bolivia, and now a
majority of cocaine in Colombia, and that also is transited through
Mexico.
So we know where the problem is. What we do not know are the
solutions on how to get a handle on it. We do know that we must restore
a few dollars into the programs that are most effective, the most cost
effective. Stopping drugs at their source, where they are grown, the
crop eradication programs, we have now seen are so effective. And
substitution programs in Bolivia and Peru we know are stopping
production, they are stopping cultivation and providing alternative
development for people in those regions so they do not go back to
producing the basis for hard drugs.
We know we have to work with President Pastrana, the new president in
Colombia. We must get him the resources to eradicate the hectares of
poppy that have grown while the administration stopped equipment and
resources from reaching that region. We know we must do that.
We must get a handle on the situation in Mexico. Mexico is losing
control of its Nation. The Baja peninsula is now controlled by drug
lords. Ironically, where the President met, in Merida, the Yucatan
peninsula is now controlled by the drug lords; and other areas, regions
and states of Mexico are totally controlled by narco-terrorists who are
raining destruction, who have gone from corruption to terrorist
intimidation of people in that country.
I will say that there are people at the top, President Zedillo, a
brave attorney general who we met with, that are trying their best, but
I am concerned that they are about to lose control of their nation to
narco-terrorists. So we must find a solution. We must find some way to
hold their feet to the fire, to aid them, as good neighbors.
We must reach across the aisle when the minority leader of the House
says that what the President has done is not correct relating to
Mexico, and we must find a solution that is correct. We cannot afford
to let this go on. We cannot fill our jails with any more Americans. We
cannot subsidize the quarter of a trillion dollar loss to our economy,
not to mention the destroyed lives of our young people and other
Americans who could have been so productive.
So that is our task. It is an important task. It is, again, I believe
the biggest social problem facing this Nation.
Stop and think if we could eliminate 60 percent of the crime. Stop
and think if we could eliminate 60 to 70 percent of those deaths. Stop
and think if we could have more productive citizens rather than people
strung out on drugs, ruining again their lives and their loved ones'
lives, of what we could do in this Nation.
So I believe it is an important task. I do not plan to let up for a
minute. I do not have the answers at this point, but we will review
every possible solution. We extend our hand of cooperation across the
aisle to our colleagues and to anyone who is interested, who wants to
come forward and help us with a problem that we must address, that we
must resolve in the best interest of the Congress, in the best interest
of our Nation, and in the best interest of those who hope to have any
future in this country, our young people.
____________________
INTRODUCING H.R. 948, THE DEBT DOWNPAYMENT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilbray). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the
attention of my colleagues in Congress a letter I received today. It is
a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Alan Paul of Ellsworth, Kansas. The Pauls
write to suggest that Congress use its good sense and to do what is
best for the country.
Mr. Paul specifically writes, ``Comes now a budget surplus. You know
and I know that the `surplus' can be what we want it to be depending on
how we cook the books. Fact is, without Social Security, there is no
surplus. Suddenly, Democrats see new programs we cannot get along
without, Republicans get those tax cut dollar signs in their eyes, and
our collective brains get all mushy. I have a revolutionary idea,'' Mr.
Paul writes. ``Let's do nothing. No new programs, no tax cuts, nothing.
Let the surplus reduce the debt, thereby reducing the annual interest
payments out of the budget and thereby bolstering Social Security.''
Mr. Paul is right. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Debt
Downpayment Act, legislation that will establish a plan for paying down
our national debt. While many in Washington celebrate the idea that we
have balanced the books, Americans, and especially Kansans, have not
forgotten that our national debt stands at $5.6 trillion. That is over
$20,000 for every American. Twenty thousand dollars per person is not
balanced, and using the Social Security Trust Fund to mask the true
extent of the debt is not balanced either.
Debt is certainly not a glamorous issue in Washington. It is much
more exciting to talk about new programs that our surpluses could fund.
In each of our districts there are great needs. In Kansas, all of our
major industries face record low prices. Wheat, oil, hogs and cattle
prices are wiping out family farmers, ranchers and small oil producers.
{time} 1930
Our hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of an aging and rural
population. I rise this evening not to suggest that we should ignore
the pressing needs of the American people but to remind Members of
Congress that as we meet these needs we must continue to make the
difficult choices that can help us reduce our national debt.
Mr. Speaker, despite the claims, we do not have surpluses as far as
the eye can see. In fact, we have a very short window of time where
demographics and a strong national economy will allow us to pay down a
portion of our national debt.
[[Page 3300]]
The Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, the
chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Dr. Greenspan, have all warned
us repeatedly that the good times will not last forever. Assuming we
continue with our current economic growth, deficits are still expected
to return in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, the chart shows where we are today in 1998, and we are
headed on the right path but, lo and behold, doing nothing still sends
us back and in 2040 the projected debt levels are two times our gross
national product.
Those are not good signs. This is the window of opportunity for us to
do something right, and we cannot afford to let this chance pass us by.
The legislation I have introduced is simple. If Congress does nothing
to botch this opportunity, the amount of our publicly-held debt is
expected to be reduced by $2.4 trillion by 2009. This bill simply locks
in today's once in a lifetime opportunity to pay down the debt by
establishing gradually reduced debt limits each year. Doing so provides
an average annual down payment on the debt of $240 billion each year
for the next 10 years and requires no new spending cuts.
I urge all my colleagues to consider the benefits of paying down the
debt. Today, nearly 15 percent of the Federal budget goes to make
interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, 15 percent of our budget goes to pay interest on the
national debt. That is almost as much as national defense, almost as
much as Social Security, and more than income security or Medicare. It
is a huge portion of the problem we face each year.
The budget today looks too much like bad credit card spending. We pay
only the minimum amount each month. We spend a hefty sum on interest
and we never establish a plan to pay down the principal.
My bill would save an estimated $730 billion in interest payments
over the next 10 years. That is good for the Federal budget and it is
good for the economy. We can lower interest rates for America's car
loans, our mortgages, our student loans and our farm debt and free up
11 percent of the budget for tax cuts or other important priorities.
Foremost, reducing our debt strengthens our ability to meet our
obligations for Social Security. In 2013, just 14 years from now, as
the baby-boomers retire, payroll taxes are expected to be insufficient
to meet the promised Social Security benefits. Congress will either
need to raise taxes or tap into general revenue. By reducing the debt,
we can do something today that makes it much easier to meet the needs
of the next generation's retirement.
This legislation also removes Social Security trust fund revenues
from all calculations of the surplus. We must be honest with ourselves
and with the American people.
H.R. 948 offers a simple, straightforward plan for paying down our
national debt. With the right decisions today, we can strengthen
economic growth into the next generation, but if we fail we could see
an expansion of the size and scope of government and a debt burden that
lowers the standard of living for every American. I urge each of us to
make the necessary commitment and seize this historic opportunity to do
the right thing for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Paul's letter concludes, ``And maybe, Jerry, just maybe, if you
pull off this miraculous feat, God will forgive us all for the terrible
sins we have committed against our future generations.''
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Evans (at the request of Mr. Gephardt), for today, on account of
family illness.
Mr. Buyer (at the request of Mr. Armey), for today, on account of
illness.
Mr. McCollum (at the request of Mr. Armey), for today and the balance
of the week, on account of family medical reasons.
Ms. Granger (at the request of Mr. Armey), for today and the balance
of the week, on account of illness.
Mr. Everett (at the request of Mr. Armey), for today and the balance
of the week, on account of 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:)
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Green of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Ford, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Fosella) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Diaz-Balart, for 5 minutes each, today and March 3.
Mr. Scarborough, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Wolf, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Tancredo, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Hayes, for 5 minutes, on March 4.
(The following Member (at her own request) to revise and extend her
remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mrs. Jones of Ohio for 5 minutes today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 39 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until Wednesday, March 3, 1999, at 10 a.m.
____________________
RULES AND REPORTS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(d), executive communications [final rules]
submitted to the House pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1) during the period
of June 18, 1998 through January 6, 1999, shall be treated as though
received on March 2, 1999. Original dates of transmittal, numberings,
and referrals to committee of those executive communications remain as
indicated in the Executive Communication section of the relevant
Congressional Records of the 105th Congress.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
792. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--Sugar
to be Imported and Re-exported in Refined Form or in Sugar
Containing Products, or Used for the Production of Polyhydric
Alcohol (RIN: 0551-AA39) received February 22, 1999, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
793. A letter from the Under Secretary for Acquisition and
Technology, Department of Defense, transmitting A report
identifying the percentage of funds that were expended during
the preceding fiscal year for performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair workloads, pursuant to Public Law
105--85 section 358(e) (111 stat. 1696); to the Committee on
Armed Services.
794. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Television-Audio Support Activity [DFARS Case 98-D008]
received February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
795. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement;
Specifications and Standards Requisition [DFARS Case 98-D022]
received February 10, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
796. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement;
Flexible Progress Payments [DFARS Case 98-D400] received
February 10, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
[[Page 3301]]
797. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
People's Republic of China [DFARS Case 98-D305] received
February 10, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
798. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Singapore Accession to Government Procurement Agreement
[DFARS Case 98-D029] received February 10, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
799. A letter from the Alternate OSD Federal Register
Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Civilian Health and Medical Program
of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); Individual Case
Management [DoD 6010.8-R] (RIN: 0720-AA30) received February
10, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Armed Services.
800. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the
System's final rule--Credit by Brokers and Dealers; List of
Foreign Margin Stocks [Regulation T] received February 18,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
801. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Department of Education, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Student Assistance General
Provisions--received February 22, 1998, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
802. A letter from the Deputy Executive Secretary to the
Department, Health and Human Services, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Head Start Program (RIN: 0970--AB31)
received February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
803. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Michigan: Correction
[MI67-02-7275; FRL-6302-3] received February 11, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
804. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Wyoming: Final
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program
Revision [FRL-6302-1] received February 11, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
805. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Managment and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Emissions: Group I
Polymers and Resins and Group IV Polymers and Resins and
Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry [AD-FRL-
6301-6] (RIN: 2060-AH-47) received February 11, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
806. A letter from the Office of Regulatory Management and
Information, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule-- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia;
Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of
Nitrogen [DC017-2013a; FRL-6234-6] received February 18,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
807. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, FDA, Food and Drug Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Standards for
Animal Food and Food Additives in Standardized Animal Food;
Correction [Docket No. 95N-0313] received February 22, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
808. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, FDA, Food and Drug Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Foods and
Drugs; Technical Amendments; Correction--received February
22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Commerce.
809. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a supplement report about the continuing
deployment of U.S. military personnel in Kenya; (H. Doc. No.
106--33); to the Committee on International Relations and
ordered to be printed.
810. A letter from the Managing Director for
Administration, Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
transmitting the Corporation's final rule-- Production of
nonpublic records and testimony of OPIC employees in legal
proceedings (RIN: 3420-AA02) received February 16, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
International Relations.
811. A letter from the Director, Congressional Budget
Office, transmitting notification that the Congressional
Budget Office has waived the deduction-of-pay requirement for
a reemployed annuitant, pursuant to Public Law 102--190; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
812. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, transmitting the 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
pursuant to Public Law 103--62; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
813. A letter from the Comptroller General, General
Accounting Office, transmitting a monthly listing of new
investigations, audits, and evaluations; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
814. A letter from the Office of Inspector General,
National Science Foundation, transmitting the semiannual
report of the National Science Foundation for September 1998,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to
the Committee on Government Reform.
815. A letter from the Chairman, National Transportation
Safety Board, transmitting the report pursuant to the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act, pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
3512(c)(3); to the Committee on Government Reform.
816. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting the performance plan for fiscal year
2000; to the Committee on Government Reform.
817. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation,
transmitting notification of a vacancy where an appointment
is required for the Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
818. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting
notice on leasing systems for the Central Gulf of Mexico,
Sale 172, scheduled to be held in March 1999, pursuant to 43
U.S.C. 1337(a)(8); to the Committee on Resources.
819. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Alaska Regulatory
Program [AK-007-FOR, Amendment No. VII] received February 22,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
820. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Abandoned Mine Land
(AML) Reclamation Program; Enhancing AML Reclamation (RIN:
1029-AB89) received February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
821. A letter from the Director, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting an annual report on actions taken in respect to
the New England fishing capacity reduction initiative; to the
Committee on Resources.
822. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock by Vessels Catching Pollock for Processing by the
Mothership Component in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands management area [Docket No.
981222313-8320-02; I.D. 020999B] received February 22, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
823. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Fisheries of
the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Vessels Greater than
99 feet LOA Catching Pollock for Processing by the Inshore
Component in the Bering Sea [Docket No. 981222313-8320-02;
I.D. 021199A] received February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
824. A letter from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States, transmitting a copy of the Report of
the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, held in Washington D.C., on September 15, 1998,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 331; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
825. A letter from the Director, Policy Directives and
Instructions Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
transmitting the Service's final rule--Nonimmigrant Visa
Exemption for Certain Nationals of the British Virgin Islands
Entering the United States Through St. Thomas, United States
Virgin Islands [INS No. 1956-98] (RIN: 1115-AF28) received
February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
826. A letter from the Director, Policy Directives and
Instructions Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
transmitting the Service's final rule--Exceptions to the
Educational Requirements for Naturalization for Certain
Applicants [INS No. 1702-96] (RIN: 1115-AE02) received
February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
827. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Safety Zone; Santa Barbara Channel, CA [COTP Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA; 98-012] (RIN: 2115-AA97) received February 22,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
828. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting
[[Page 3302]]
the Department's final rule--Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Chef Menteur Pass, LA [CGD8-96-053] (RIN: 2115-AE47) received
February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
829. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Safety Zone: Shlofmitz BatMitzvah Fireworks, Hudson River,
Manhattan, New York [CGD01-99-001] (RIN: 2115-AA97) received
February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
830. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Back Bay of Biloxi, MS
[CGD8-96-049] (RIN: 2115-AE47) received February 22, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
831. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Fees for Services Performed in Connection with Motor Carrier
Registration and Insurance (RIN: 2125-AE24) received February
22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
832. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. 98-NM-144-AD; Amendment 39-11025; AD 99-04-01]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
833. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Amendment of Class D Airspace; Hunter Army Airfield (AAF)
[Airspace Docket No. 99-ASO-2] received February 22, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
834. A letter from the Chairman, Surface Transportation
Board, transmitting the Board's final rule--Regulations
Governing Fees For Services Performed In Connection With
Licensing and Related Services--1999 Update-- received
February 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
835. A letter from the Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce,
transmitting a list of donations under the ``Computers for
Learning'' (K-12) program for the period July 1998 through
December 31, 1998; to the Committee on Science.
836. A letter from the Assistant Commissioner
(Examinations), Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Qualifying wages under section 41 in
determining the tax credit for increasing research
activities--received February 16, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
837. A letter from the Assistant Commissioner
(Examiniation), Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--All Industries Coordinated Issue:
Qualifying Wages Under Section 41 in Determining the Tax
Credit for Increasing Research Activities, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
838. A letter from the Assistant Commissioner
(Examination), Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Congressional Review of Market Segment
Specialization Program (MSSP) Audit Techniques Guides--
received February 16, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
839. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Election in respect of losses attributable to a disaster
[Revenue Ruling 99-13] received February 23, 1999, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
840. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Weighted Average Interest Rate Update [Notice 99-11] received
February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
841. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Branch, U.S.
Customs Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--Gray
Market Imports and Other Trademarked Goods [T.D. 99-21] (RIN:
1515-AB49) received February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
842. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting notification of
the intent to obligate Fiscal Year 1999 SEED funds by the the
United States Information Agency; jointly to the Committees
on International Relations and Appropriations.
843. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Department of
State, transmitting notification of the intent to obligate
Fiscal Year 1999 SEED funds by the Department of State;
jointly to the Committees on International Relations and
Appropriations.
844. A letter from the Deputy Executive Secretary to the
Department, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Medicare Program;
Changes to the MedicareChoice Program [HCFA-1030-F] (RIN:
0938-AI29) received February 22, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and
Commerce.
845. A letter from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, transmitting a report on the schedule for the
development of a prospective payment system (PPS) for home
health services furnished under the Medicare program; jointly
to the Committees on Ways and Means and Commerce.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. SHUSTER: Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. H.R. 661. A bill to direct the Secretary of
Transportation to prohibit the commercial operation of
supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply
with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union adopts
certain aircraft noise regulations (Rept. 106-35). Referred
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
Mr. COMBEST: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 609. A bill to
amend the Export Apple and Pear Act to limit the
applicability of the Act to apples (Rept. 106-36). Referred
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 85. Resolution providing for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 603) to amend title 49, United States Code, to
clarify the application of the Act popularly known as the
``Death on the High Seas Act'' to aviation incidents (Rept.
106-37). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 86. Resolution providing for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 661) to direct the Secretary of Transportation to
prohibit the commercial operation of supersonic transport
category aircraft that do not comply with stage 3 noise
levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft noise
regulations (Rept. 106-38). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. SPENCE: Committee on Armed Services. H.R. 4. A bill to
declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a
national missile defense (Rept. 106-39, Pt. 1).
discharge of committee
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the Committee on International
Relations discharged from further consideration. H.R. 4 referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to
be printed.
____________________
TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the
Speaker:
H.R. 4. Referral to the Committee on International
Relations extended for a period ending not later than March
2, 1999.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. KANJORSKI:
H.R. 891. A bill to authorize certain States to prohibit
the importation of solid waste from other States, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. FORBES:
H.R. 892. A bill to renew education in this country by
providing funds for school renovation and construction,
scholarships that allow parents choice in education, and tax
incentives; 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. FORBES:
H.R. 893. A bill to provide that the National Assessment
Governing Board has the exclusive authority over all
policies, direction, and guidelines for establishing and
implementing certain voluntary national tests; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. SALMON (for himself, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania,
Mr. DeLay, Mr. Largent, Mr. Frost, Mr. Weller, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms.
Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Cannon, Mrs. Fowler,
Ms. Danner, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Gilman, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Scarborough, Mr.
Hilleary, Mr. English, Mr. Lazio, Mr. Saxton, Mr.
Horn, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Burr of
North Carolina, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. King of New York, Mr.
Hall of Texas, Mr.
[[Page 3303]]
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Foley, Mr. Mica, Mr. Gary
Miller of California, Mr. Linder, Mr. Barton of
Texas, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ney, Mr. Goode, Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Green of
Wisconsin, Mr. Packard, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Regula, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
Riley, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Knollenberg,
and Mr. Kingston):
H.R. 894. A bill to encourage States to incarcerate
individuals convicted of murder, rape, or child molestation;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mrs. Morella,
Mr. Porter, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Greenwood, Mr.
Waxman, Mr. Shays, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Baird, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Conyers, and
Mr. Boehlert):
H.R. 895. A bill to restore a United States voluntary
contribution to the United Nations Population Fund; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey:
H.R. 896. A bill to require the installation and use by
schools and libraries of a technology for filtering or
blocking material on the Internet on computers with Internet
access to be eligible to receive or retain universal service
assistance; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. FORBES:
H.R. 897. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation
to conduct a study and issue a report on predatory and
discriminatory practices of airlines which restrict consumer
access to unbiased air transportation passenger service and
fare information; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. MCINNIS (for himself, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Hefley,
Mr. Tancredo, and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
H.R. 898. A bill designating certain land in the San Isabel
National Forest in the State of Colorado as the ``Spanish
Peaks Wilderness''; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself and Mr. LoBiondo):
H.R. 899. A bill to provide for the liquidation of Libyan
assets to pay for the costs of travel to and from the Hague
of families of the victims of the crash of Pan Am flight 103
for the purpose of attending the trial of the terrorist
suspects in the crash; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. LAFALCE (for himself, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Bentsen,
Ms. Lee, Mr. Inslee, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gonzalez,
Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Brown of
California, Mr. Olver, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Shows, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Faleomavaega, and Mrs. Mink of Hawaii):
H.R. 900. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to
enhance consumer disclosures regarding credit card terms and
charges, to restrict issuance of credit cards to students, to
expand protections in connection with unsolicited credit
cards and third-party checks and to protect consumers from
unreasonable practices that result in unnecessary credit
costs or loss of credit, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. BLAGOJEVICH (for himself, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Quinn,
Mr. Sessions, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gutierrez, Mrs.
Maloney of New York, and Mr. Frost):
H.R. 901. A bill to amend the Support for East European
Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989 to provide for the transfer of
amounts of the Polish-American Enterprise Fund upon the
termination of that Enterprise Fund to a private, nonprofit
organization located in Poland; to the Committee on
International Relations.
By Mr. BLAGOJEVICH (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Castle,
Mr. Conyers, Mr. Scott, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr.
Weygand, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Maloney
of New York, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Ford, Mr.
Markey, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Lipinski, Ms.
Pelosi, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mrs.
Christensen):
H.R. 902. A bill to regulate the sale of firearms at gun
shows; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BLILEY (for himself, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Boucher,
Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Pickett, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Goode,
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bilirakis,
Mr. Blunt, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Coburn, Mr. Cook, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr.
English, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr.
Hall of Texas, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Horn, Mr. Jenkins,
Mr. Kasich, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Lazio, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
Metcalf, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Pickering, Mr. Pitts, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Riley,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Shays, Mr. Shimkus, and
Mr. Weldon of Florida):
H.R. 903. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to redesign the $1 bill so as to incorporate the preamble to
the Constitution of the United States, a list describing the
Articles of the Constitution, and a list describing the
Articles of Amendment, on the reverse side of such currency;
to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Shays,
Mr. Tierney, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Berry, Mr. Serrano,
Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Cooksey, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stark, Mr. DeFazio,
Mr. Kleczka, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr.
Weygand, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Boehlert, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Ackerman,
Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Rothman, Mr. English, Mrs.
Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Klink, Ms. Hooley of
Oregon, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Davis of
Florida, Mr. Upton, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mrs. Myrick):
H.R. 904. A bill to assure access under group health plans
and health insurance coverage to covered emergency medical
services; to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to
the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and 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. CASTLE:
H.R. 905. A bill to provide funding for the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Rangel, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Meehan, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs. Meek of Florida,
Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Meeks
of New York, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Rush,
Mr. Owens, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Fattah, Ms.
Lee, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, and Ms.
Schakowsky):
H.R. 906. A bill to secure the Federal voting rights of
persons who have been released from incarceration; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 907. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Transportation to implement a
pilot program to improve access to the national
transportation system for small communities, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Lipinski, and Ms.
Slaughter):
H.R. 908. A bill to improve consumers' access to airline
industry information, to promote competition in the aviation
industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. DeGETTE (for herself, Mr. Allen, and Mr.
Waxman):
H.R. 909. A bill to provide funding for States to correct
Y2K problems in computers that are used to administer State
and local government programs; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
By Mr. DREIER (for himself, Mr. Horn, Mr. Martinez,
Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Gary Miller of California, and
Ms. Roybal-Allard):
H.R. 910. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers and in coordination
with other Federal agency heads, to participate in the
funding and implementation of a balanced, long-term solution
to the problems of groundwater contamination, water supply,
and reliability affecting the San Gabriel groundwater basin
in California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. ETHERIDGE (for himself, Mr. Coble, Mr. Price of
North Carolina, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Watt of
North Carolina, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr.
Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Mr. Ballenger, and Mrs. Myrick):
H.R. 911. A bill to designate the Federal building located
at 310 New Bern Avenue in Raleigh, North Carolina, as the
``Terry Sanford Federal Building''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Olver, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Stark, and Ms. Woolsey):
H.R. 912. A bill to provide for the medical use of
marijuana; to the Committee on Commerce.
[[Page 3304]]
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr.
Stark):
H.R. 913. A bill to provide retrospective application of an
amendment made by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 pertaining to the applicability of
mandatory minimum penalties in certain cases; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Payne,
Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sanders, Mr. LaFalce, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Vento, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Boehlert, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms.
Pelosi, Ms. Waters, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr.
Hall of Ohio, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Quinn, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Goode, Mrs.
Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Filner, and Mr. Hinchey):
H.R. 914. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to limit the penalty for late enrollment under
the Medicare Program to 10 percent and twice the period of no
enrollment; to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to
the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GEKAS (for himself, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Davis of
Virginia, Mr. Filner, Mr. Wolf, and Mrs. Morella):
H.R. 915. A bill to authorize a cost of living adjustment
in the pay of administrative law judges; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. GEKAS:
H.R. 916. A bill to make technical amendments to section 10
of title 9, United States Code; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. GIBBONS:
H.R. 917. A bill to designate the Federal building and
United States Post Office located at 705 N. Plaza Street in
Carson City, Nevada, as the ``Paul Laxalt Federal Building
and United States Post Office''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. HOLDEN:
H.R. 918. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase to 100 percent the amount of the deduction for
the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island:
H.R. 919. A bill to adjust the immigration status of
certain Liberian nationals who were provided refuge in the
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island:
H.R. 920. A bill to expand the powers of the Secretary of
the Treasury to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and
sale of firearms and ammunition, and to expand the
jurisdiction of the Secretary to include firearm products and
non-powder firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LAHOOD:
H.R. 921. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide emergency market loss assistance to swine producers
for losses incurred due to economic and market conditions in
the United States beyond their control that occurred during a
three-month period in 1998, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on
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. LATHAM:
H.R. 922. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase the maximum amount allowable as an annual
contribution to education individual retirement accounts from
$500 to $2,000, phased in over 3 years; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mrs. Thurman, Mr.
Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Capuano, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Filner, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Towns, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Ford, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Frost, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Fattah,
Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Ms.
Carson, Mrs. Christensen, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
Ms. Woolsey, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr.
Berman, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Owens, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Payne,
Mr. Stearns, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Brown of
California, Mr. Sandlin, and Mr. Spratt):
H.R. 923. A bill to authorize the establishment of the
National African-American Museum within the Smithsonian
Institution; to the Committee on House Administration, and in
addition to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut (for himself and Mr.
Spratt):
H.R. 924. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow vendor refunds of Federal excise taxes on undyed
kerosene used in unvented heaters for home heating purposes;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mrs. Morella,
Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Cook, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mrs.
Thurman, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mrs.
Clayton, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Hooley of
Oregon, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Woolsey, Mrs. Napolitano,
Ms. Velazquez, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Kennedy of
Rhode Island, Mr. Frost, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Shows, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Nadler, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Sandlin, Mr.
Bishop, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Ford, Mr.
Brown of California, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Dixon, Mr.
Borski, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Clement, Mr. Mascara, and
Mr. Faleomavaega):
H.R. 925. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require
that group and individual health insurance coverage and group
health plans provide coverage for qualified individuals for
bone mass measurement (bone density testing) to prevent
fractures associated with osteoporosis and to help women make
informed choices about their reproductive and post-menopausal
health care; to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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. McHUGH:
H.R. 926. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to
issue an environmental impact statement before the
International Joint Commission implements any water
regulation plan affecting the water levels of Lake Ontario or
the St. Lawrence River; referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committee on Resources, 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. McINNIS (for himself, Mr. Houghton, Ms. Dunn,
Mr. English, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr.
Watkins, Mr. Foley, Mr. Tancredo, and Mr. Shows):
H.R. 927. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase the annual exclusion from the gift tax to
$20,000; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. MILLER of Florida:
H.R. 928. A bill to require that the 2000 decennial census
include either a general or targeted followup mailing of
census questionnaires, whichever, in the judgement of the
Secretary of Commerce, will be more effective in securing the
return of census information from the greatest number of
households possible; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. MILLER of Florida (for himself, Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin, Mr. Davis of Virginia, and Mr. Souder):
H.R. 929. A bill to amend title 13, United States Code, to
require that the questionnaire used in taking the 2000
decennial census be made available in certain languages
besides English; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mrs. MINK of Hawaii:
H.R. 930. A bill to amend the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act to remove the requirement that exposure
resulting in stomach cancer occur before age 30, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. MINK of Hawaii:
H.R. 931. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide that an individual who leaves employment because
of sexual harassment or the loss of child care will, for
purposes of determining such individual's eligibility for
unemployment compensation, be treated as having left such
employment for good cause; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mrs. MINK of Hawaii:
H.R. 932. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to treat a portion of welfare benefits which are contingent
on employment as earned income for purposes of the earned
income credit, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mrs. MORELLA (for herself, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Waxman, Mrs. Maloney of
New York, Ms. Pelosi, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr.
Underwood, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Goode, Mr.
Ford, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Nadler, Mr.
Kleczka, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Frost, Mr. Pascrell,
Mr. Filner, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Sandlin, Mr.
Metcalf, Mr. Shows, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
[[Page 3305]]
Faleomavaega, Mr. Foley, and Mrs. Myrick):
H.R. 933. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
ensure that coverage of bone mass measurements is provided
under the health benefits program for Federal employees; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. PALLONE:
H.R. 934. A bill to prohibit the commercial harvesting of
Atlantic striped bass in the coastal waters and the exclusive
economic zone; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. Hostettler):
H.R. 935. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition
and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and
secondary education; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 936. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a credit against income tax for amounts contributed
to charitable organizations which provide elementary or
secondary school scholarships and for contributions of, and
for, instructional materials and materials for extra-
curricular activities; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Stearns, and Mr.
Hinchey):
H.R. 937. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a tax credit for elementary and secondary school
teachers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Ms. Waters, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. Meek of
Florida, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lee, Mr. Neal
of Massachusetts, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Carson, Mr.
Rush, Mr. Snyder, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Dixon,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Moakley, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Engel, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Clay, Mr. Scott, Mr. Brown of
California, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Levin, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii,
Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sabo, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Underwood, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr.
LaFalce, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
Mr. Portman, Mr. Frost, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr.
Waxman, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Etheridge):
H.R. 938. A bill to designate the Federal building located
at 290 Broadway in New York, New York, as the ``Ronald H.
Brown Federal Building''; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
Cummings, Ms. Lee, Mr. Wynn, Ms. Millender-McDonald,
Ms. Carson, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Ford, Mr. Clay,
Mr. Rush, Mr. Dixon, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Hilliard,
Mrs. Clayton, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Payne, Mr. Owens, Ms. Brown
of Florida, Mrs. Meek of Florida, and Ms. Pelosi):
H.R. 939. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act and
the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to eliminate
certain mandatory minimum penalties relating to crack cocaine
offenses; referred 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. SHERWOOD:
H.R. 940. A bill to establish the Lackawanna Heritage
Valley American Heritage Area; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. Horn, Mr. Spence, Mr.
Inslee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Moakley, Mr.
Kleczka, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Frost, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Luther, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mrs. Thurman,
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Wynn, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Hall of Ohio,
Ms. Norton, Mr. Waxman, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
H.R. 941. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative
medal for organ donors and their families; referred to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and in addition
to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Oxley, Mr.
McCollum, Mr. Foley, Mrs. Meek of Florida, and Mr.
Sessions):
H.R. 942. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
reduce restrictions on media ownership, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (for himself, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Clay, Ms. McKinney, Mr. LaFalce, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. King of New York, Mrs. Mink
of Hawaii, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Hilliard,
Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Lantos, Mr.
Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Wynn, Mrs. Clayton, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Ford, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Scott,
and Mr. Rush):
H.R. 943. A bill to reimburse an individual who is the
subject of an independent counsel's investigation and is
indicted but found not guilty for attorneys' fees; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. UNDERWOOD (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, and
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii):
H.R. 944. A bill to convert a temporary Federal judgeship
in the district of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship, to
authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the district
of Hawaii, extend statutory authority for magistrate
positions in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. UNDERWOOD:
H.R. 945. A bill to deny to aliens the opportunity to apply
for asylum in Guam; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. WOOLSEY:
H.R. 946. A bill to restore Federal recognition to the
Indians of the Graton Rancheria of California; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 947. A bill to address resource management issues in
Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. MORAN of Kansas (for himself and Mr. Pickering):
H.R. 948. A bill to amend chapter 31 of title 31, United
States Code, to establish lower statutory limits for debt
held by the public for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2009, and for other purposes; referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the
Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BACHUS (for himself, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. English, Mr.
Traficant, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Istook, Mr. Chabot, Mr.
Rush, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mrs. Northup, and Mr.
Hostettler):
H.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution disapproving the
certification of the President under section 490(b) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance
for Mexico during fiscal year 1999; to the Committee on
International Relations.
By Mr. WATKINS (for himself and Mr. Thornberry):
H. Con. Res. 39. Concurrent resolution urging the President
to oppose expansion of the Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq,
condemning Saddam Hussein for the actions the Government of
Iraq has taken against the Iraqi people and for its defiance
of the United Nations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. GILMAN:
H. Res. 84. A resolution recognizing the positive steps and
achievements of the Republic of India and the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan to foster peaceful relations between the
two nations; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. THOMAS:
H. Res. 87. A resolution electing members of the Joint
Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on
the Library.
By Mr. THOMAS:
H. Res. 88. A resolution designating majority membership on
certain standing committees of the House; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. GEKAS (for himself, Mr. Bentsen, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Callahan, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Nethercutt):
H. Res. 89. A resolution to express the sense of the House
of Representatives that the Federal investment in biomedical
research should be increased by $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year
2000; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. PALLONE:
H. Res. 90. A resolution recognizing the ``Code Adam''
child safety program, commending retail business
establishments that have implemented programs to protect
children from abduction, and urging retail business
establishments that have not implemented such programs to
consider doing so; to the Committee on Commerce.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mr. GREENWOOD introduced A bill (H.R. 949) to authorize the
Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in
the coastwise trade for the vessel PRIDE OF MANY; which was
referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
[[Page 3306]]
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 11: Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Farr of California.
H.R. 13: Mr. Taylor of Mississippi.
H.R. 17: Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Turner.
H.R. 19: Mr. Wamp, Mr. Pickett, Mr. English, Mr. Sessions,
and Mr. Norwood.
H.R. 22: Mr. Ney.
H.R. 36: Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. Meeks of
New York, and Mr. Berman.
H.R. 38: Mr. Cooksey.
H.R. 49: Mr. Lampson.
H.R. 53: Ms. Granger.
H.R. 61: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 89: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Radanovich, Mr.
Sununu, Mr. Reyes, and Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 110: Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Filner, Mr. Shows,
Mrs. Christensen, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Kleczka, Mr. Sandlin, and Mr. Olver.
H.R. 111: Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Jenkins, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Weller, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Gordon, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Goode, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Delahunt,
Ms. DeGette, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Martinez, and Mr. Coyne.
H.R. 116: Mr. Brown of California, Mrs. Emerson, and Mrs.
Myrick.
H.R. 119: Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Foley,
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr.
Mica, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Ford, Mr.
LaHood, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Gary Miller
of California, and Mr. Scarborough.
H.R. 125: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 150: Mrs. Chenoweth and Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 165: Mr. Wexler, Mr. Stark, and Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 206: Mr. Payne, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Olver, Mrs. Myrick,
and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 218: Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Hutchinson.
H.R. 219: Mr. Salmon, Mr. Hostettler, and Mr. Hayworth.
H.R. 220: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 232: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 235: Mr. Goodling and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 271: Mr. Shows, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Davis of
Illinios, Mr. Moore, Ms. Sanchez, and Ms. Velazquez.
H.R. 318: Mr. Wexler and Mr. Bilirakis.
H.R. 323: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Hefley, Mr. Leach, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr. Payne.
H.R. 351: Mr. Combest and Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
H.R. 357: Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Hoyer.
H.R. 363: Mrs. Mink of Hawaii and Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 364: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 365: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 366: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 371: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Kind of
Wisconsin, Mr. Borski, Mr. English, Mr. Luther, Mr. Herger,
Mr. Pombo, Mr. Petri, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
and Mr. Horn.
H.R. 372: Mr. Borski.
H.R. 382: Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Schakowsky,
Mr. Green of Texas, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Brown of
California, and Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 393: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 394: Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 395: Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 397: Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 405: Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Rahall,
Mr. Goodling, Mr. Foley, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Leach, and Mr. Costello.
H.R. 406: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Canady of Florida,
Mr. Goodling, and Mr. Dooley of California.
H.R. 412: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Radanovich, Mr.
Minge, and Mr. Toomey.
H.R. 415: Mrs. Jones of Ohio and Ms. Brown of Florida.
H.R. 417: Mr. Engel and Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 423: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 424: Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Delahunt, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Towns, and Mr.
Coyne.
H.R. 443: Mr. Olver, Mr. Bilbray, and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 449: Mr. Saxton and Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 455: Ms. Norton, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Payne.
H.R. 457: Mr. Luther, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Hoyer,
Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Moakley, and Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 472: Mr. Shaw and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 483: Mrs. Capps, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Sisisky,
Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 488: Mr. Olver.
H.R. 489: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Inslee, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr.
Faleomavaega.
H.R. 502: Mr. Mica.
H.R. 506: Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Wamp, Ms. DeGette, Mr.
Gillmor, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and Mr. Gutknecht.
H.R. 515: Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Ms.
Lofgren, Mr. Rush, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi,
Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Moore.
H.R. 516: Mr. Duncan, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Stump,
Mr. Blunt, Mr. Gibbons, and Mr. Sununu.
H.R. 517: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 518: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 530: Mr. Riley, Mr. Ney, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr.
Istook, Mr. Weller, Mr. Tiahrt, and Mr. Gibbons.
H.R. 532: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Snyder,
and Mr. Vento.
H.R. 537: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 540: Mr. Pickering, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Wynn, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Towns, Mr. Mica, Mrs. Capps, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 541: Mr. Berman and Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 548: Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Watt of North Carolina.
H.R. 573: Mr. Serrano, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Davis of Florida,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Brown of California, Mrs. Northup,
Mr. Filner, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Wise, Mr. Lipinski, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Pickett, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr.
Sandlin, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. McIntosh, Mr.
Hostettler, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Lucas
of Oklahoma, and Mr. Hall of Ohio.
H.R. 576: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 595: Mr. Ford, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 608: Mr. English, Mr. Rush, and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 609: Mr. Nethercutt.
H.R. 617: Mr. Goodling, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 621: Mr. Kasich and Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 623: Mr. Gillmor.
H.R. 628: Mr. Dickey, Mr. Stearns, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
English, and Mr. Hutchinson.
H.R. 647: Mr. Foley and Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 654: Mr. Inslee, Mr. LaFalce, and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 656: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 664: Mr. Mascara and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 670: Mr. Payne, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, and Mr.
Bereuter.
H.R. 682: Mr. Houghton, Mr. English, Mr. Foley, and Mr.
Goode.
H.R. 691: Mr. Filner, Mr. Ney, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. LaHood,
Mr. Dickey, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 696: Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 701: Mr. Linder, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Stump,
Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Turner, Mr.
Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Whitfield, and Mr.
Bentsen.
H.R. 707: Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 708: Mrs. Thurman and Mr. Taylor of Mississippi.
H.R. 718: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. English, Mr.
Dooley of California, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, and Mr.
Aderholt.
H.R. 735: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 750: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Bonilla, Mrs.
Christensen, and Mr. Markey.
H.R. 756: Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 763: Mr. Hill of Montana and Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 773: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Jenkins,
Mr. Wise, Mr. Payne, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mrs. Capps,
Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. King of New York, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Sandlin,
and Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 780: Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 788: Mr. Kasich.
H.R. 798: Mr. Clay, Mr. Olver, Mr. Gutierrez, Mrs.
Napolitano, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 800: Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Terry, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Frost, Mr. Herger,
Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Lucas
of Kentucky, Mr. Largent, and Mr. Fletcher.
H.R. 804: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Stupak, and Mr.
Faleomavaega.
H.R. 808: Mr. Bereuter, Mr. English, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr.
Riley, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, and Mr. Hill of Montana.
H.R. 833: Mr. Cook, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. English, Mr. Goode,
Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Oxley,
Mr. Royce, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Stump, Mr. Tanner, and Mr.
Tauzin.
H.R. 852: Mr. Shows, Mr. Istook, and Mr. Cooksey.
H.R. 872: Mr. Rush, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Olver, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Waters, Ms. Lofgren, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Towns, and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 877: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 882: Mr. Tanner, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Thune,
Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Boswell, Ms. Danner, Mr. Hill of Indiana.
Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Clement, Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
Baldacci, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Phelps, Mrs.
Clayton, and Mr. Walden of Oregon.
[[Page 3307]]
H.J. Res. 1: Mr. Mica, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, and
Mr. Ramstad.
H.J. Res. 31: Mr. Stearns and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H. Con. Res. 8: Mr. Leach, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Sanders,
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mrs. Myrick, Mrs. Capps, and Mr.
Foley.
H. Con. Res. 17: Mr. Luther.
H. Con. Res. 22: Mr. English and Mr. Calvert.
H. Con. Res. 24: Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Shays, Mr.
Ganske, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Shaw, Mr.
Smith of Washington, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Metcalf, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Bilbray,
Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Terry, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Coyne,
Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeMint, Mr.
Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Ehlers,
Mr. Tanner, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Leach, and
Mr. Shadegg.
H. Con. Res. 30: Mr. Combest, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Green of
Wisconsin.
H. Con. Res. 31: Mr. Stupak.
H. Con. Res. 34: Mr. Costello, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. English, Mr.
Foley, Mr. Olver, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Ms. DeLauro.
H. Res. 32: Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Leach, Mr. Berman, Mr.
King of New York, and Mr. Underwood.
H. Res. 41: Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Foley, Mr. Fossella, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Olver, Mr. Stupak, Mr.
Tierney, and Ms. Velazquez.
H. Res. 79: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Weller,
Mr. Shows, and Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
[[Page 3308]]
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.
March 2, 1999
March 2, 1999
SENATE--Tuesday, March 2, 1999
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m., and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, Sovereign of history and personal Lord of our lives,
today we join with Jews throughout the world in the joyous celebration
of Purim. We thank You for the inspiring memory of Queen Esther who, in
the fifth century B.C., threw caution to the wind and interceded with
her husband, the King of Persia, to save the exiled Jewish people from
persecution. The words of her uncle, Mordecai, sound in our souls:
``You have come to the kingdom for such a time as this.''--Esther 4:14.
Lord of circumstances, we are moved profoundly by the way You use
individuals to accomplish Your plans and arrange what seems like
coincidence to bring about Your will for Your people. You have brought
each of us to Your kingdom for such a time as this. You whisper in our
souls, ``I have plans for you, plans for good and not for evil, to give
you a future and a hope.''--Jeremiah 29:11.
Grant the Senators a heightened sense of the special role You have
for each of them to play in the unfolding drama of American history.
Give them a sense of destiny and a deep dependence on Your guidance and
grace.
Today, during Purim, we renew our commitment to fight against
sectarian intolerance in our own hearts and religious persecution in so
many places in our world. This is Your world; let us not forget that
``though the wrong seems oft so strong, You are the Ruler yet.'' Amen.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The acting majority leader is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
THE CHAPLAIN'S PRAYER
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chaplain for the most wonderful
words of guidance.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin
consideration of S. 314, a bill providing small business loans
regarding the year 2000 computer problems. Under a previous order,
there will be 1 hour for debate on the bill equally divided between
Senators Bond and Kerry of Massachusetts with no amendments in order to
be followed by a vote on passage of the bill at 10:30 a.m. Following
that vote, the Senate will recess to allow Members to attend a
confidential hearing regarding the Y2K issue in room S. 407 of the
Capitol. At 2:15 p.m., under a previous order, the Senate will begin
consideration of S. Res. 7, a resolution to fund a special committee
dealing with the Y2K issue.
There will be 3 hours for debate on the resolution with no amendments
or motions in order. A vote will occur on adoption of the resolution
upon the expiration or yielding back of the time, which we anticipate
to be approximately 5:15 p.m.
I thank my colleagues for their attention.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS YEAR 2000 READINESS ACT
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending
business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 314) to provide the loan guarantee program to
address the year 2000 computer problems of small business
concerns, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank you very much. I will begin,
although my colleague and my cosponsor on this measure is on his way
over. Let me begin the discussion of this measure.
I thank my colleagues, Senators Bennett and Dodd, particularly for
the work of the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem
communicating to both the government agencies and the private sector
about the seriousness of the year 2000 computer problem. I look forward
to their presentations to the Senate today on the potential economic
and national security concerns that this problem raises. I also thank
Senators Bennett and Dodd, and particularly my ranking member, Senator
Kerry, the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, for their
cooperation and valuable assistance in the drafting of this important
piece of legislation.
As my colleagues on the Committee on Small Business and the Special
Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem know very well, the year
2000 computer problems may potentially cause great economic hardships
and disruptions to numerous Americans and to numerous sectors of our
economy. I am very pleased that the Senate has decided to make this
problem one of its top priorities and has scheduled discussions on this
topic early in the legislative session this year. It is commendable
that the Senate is taking action on this problem quickly, and that we
are taking action before the calamity happens, instead of after it
occurs, which could otherwise be the case.
It is imperative that we move quickly on this measure. And I hope
that we can work with our colleagues in the House to pass it and send
it to the President, because by definition, since this is 1999, the
year 2000 problem grows closer every day with the coming of the end of
this calendar year.
The bill before us is an important step toward ensuring the
continuing viability of many small businesses after December 31, 1999.
The bill will establish a loan guarantee program to be administered by
the Small Business Administration that will provide small businesses
with capital to correct their Year 2000 computer problems and provide
relief from economic injuries sustained as a result of Y2K computer
problems. Last year I introduced a similar bill that the Committee on
Small Business adopted by an 18-0 vote and that the full Senate
approved by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House of
Representatives did not act on the legislation prior to adjournment. I
reintroduced the bill this year because the consequences of Congress
not taking action to assist small businesses with their Y2K problems
are too severe to ignore. My colleagues on the Committee on Small
Business unanimously approved this legislation once again and I
sincerely hope that we can pass this bill, and as I said earlier, that
the House of Representatives will act on this legislation promptly.
The problem that awaits this country, and indeed the entire world, at
the end of this year is that many computers and processors in automated
systems will fail because such systems will not recognize the Year
2000. Small businesses that are dependent upon computer technology,
either indirectly or directly, could face failures that could
jeopardize their economic futures. In fact, a small business is at risk
if it uses any computers in its business, if it has customized
software, if it is conducting e-commerce, if it accepts credit card
payments, if it uses a service bureau for its payroll, if it depends on
a data bank for information, if it has automated equipment for
communicating with its sales or service force or if it has automated
manufacturing equipment.
[[Page 3309]]
Last June, the Committee on Small Business, which I chair, held
hearings on the effect the Y2K problem will have on small businesses.
The outlook is not good--in fact it is poor at best, particularly for
the smallest business. The Committee received testimony that the
entities most at risk from Y2K failures are small and medium-sized
companies, not larger companies. Two major reasons for this anomaly is
that many small companies have not begun to realize how much of a
problem Y2K failures could be for them, and many may not have the
access to capital to cure such problems before they cause disastrous
results.
A study on Small Business and the Y2K Problem sponsored by Wells
Fargo Bank and the NFIB found that an estimated 4.75 million small
employers are potentially subject to the Y2K problem. The committee has
also received alarming statistics on the number of small businesses
that could potentially face business failure or prolonged inactivity
due to the Year 2000 computer problem. The Gartner Group, an
international information technology consulting firm, has estimated
that between 50% and 60% of small companies worldwide would experience
at least one mission critical failure as a result of Y2K computer
problems. The committee has also received information indicating that
approximately 750,000 small businesses may either shut down due to the
Y2K problem or be severely crippled if they do not take action to cure
their Y2K problems.
Such failures and business inactivity affect not only the employees
and owners of small businesses, but also their creditors, suppliers and
customers. Lenders will face significant losses if their small business
borrowers either go out of business or have a sustained period in which
they cannot operate. Most importantly, however, is the fact that up to
7.5 million families may face the loss of paychecks for a sustained
period of time if small businesses do not remedy their Y2K problems.
Given these facts, it is easy to forecast that there will be severe
economic consequences if small businesses do not become Y2K compliant
in time and there are only 10 months to go. Indeed the countdown is on.
A good example of how small businesses are dramatically affected by
the Y2K problem is the experience of Lloyd Davis, the owner of Golden
Plains Agricultural Technologies, Inc., a farm equipment manufacturer
in Colby, Kansas. Like many small business owners, Mr. Davis' business
depends on trailing an international information technology consulting
firm, has estimated that between 50% and 60% of small companies
worldwide would experience at least one mission critical failure as a
result of Y2K computer problems. The Committee has also received
information indicating that approximately 750,000 small businesses may
either shut down due to the Y2K problem or be severely crippled if they
do not take action to cure their Y2K problems.
Such failures and business inactivity affect not only the employees
and owners of small businesses but also their creditors, suppliers and
customers. Lenders will face significant losses if their small business
borrowers either go out of business or have a sustained period in which
they cannot operate. Most importantly, however, is the fact that up to
7.5 million families may face the loss of paychecks for a sustained
period of time if small businesses do not remedy their Y2K problems.
Given these facts, it is easy to forecast that there will be severe
economic consequences if small businesses do not become Y2K compliant
in time and there are only 10 months to go. Indeed the countdown is on.
A good example of how small businesses are dramatically affected by
the Y2K problem is the experience of Lloyd Davis, the owner of Golden
Fields Agricultural Technologies, Inc., a farm equipment manufacturer
in Colby, Kansas. Like many small business owners, Mr. Davis' business
depends on trailing technology purchased over the years, including 386
computers running custom software. Mr. Davis uses his equipment to run
his entire business, including handling the company's payroll,
inventory control, and maintenance of large databases on his customers
and their specific needs. In addition, Golden Fields has a web site and
sells the farm equipment it manufactures over the internet.
Unlike many small business owners, however, Mr. Davis is aware of the
Y2K problem and tested his equipment to see if it could handle the Year
2000. His tests confirmed his fear--the equipment and software could
not process the year 2000 date and would not work properly after
December 31, 1999. That is when Mr. Davis' problems began. Golden
Fields had to purchase an upgraded software package. That cost $16,000.
Of course, the upgraded software would not run on 386 computers, so
Golden Fields had to upgrade to new hardware. Golden Fields had a
computer on each of its 11 employees' desks, so that each employee
could access the program that essentially ran the company and assist
filling the internet orders the company received. Replacing all the
hardware would have cost Golden Fields $55,000. Therefore Golden Fields
needed to expend $71,000 just to put itself in the same position it was
in before the Y2K problem.
Like many small business owners facing a large expenditure, Mr. Davis
went to his bank to obtain a loan to pay for the necessary upgrades.
Because Golden Fields was not already Y2K compliant, his bank refused
him a loan because it had rated his company's existing loans as ``high-
risk.'' Golden Fields was clearly caught in a Catch-22 situation.
Nevertheless, Mr. Davis scrambled to save his company. He decided to
lease the new hardware instead of purchasing it, but he will pay a
price that ultimately will be more expensive than conventional
financing. Moreover, instead of replacing 11 computers, Golden Fields
only replaced six at a cost of approximately $23,000. Golden Fields
will be less efficient as a result. The experience of Mr. Davis and
Golden Fields has been and will continue to be repeated across the
country as small businesses realize the impact the Y2K problem will
have on their business.
A recent survey conducted by Arthur Andersen's Enterprise Group on
behalf of National Small Business United indicates that, like Golden
Fields, many small businesses will incur significant costs to become
Y2K compliant and are very concerned about it. The survey found that to
become Y2K compliant, 29% of small businesses will purchase additional
hardware, 24% will replace existing hardware and 17% will need to
convert their entire computer system. When then asked their most
difficult challenge relating to their information technology, more than
54% of the businesses surveyed cited ``affording the cost.'' Congress
must ensure that these businesses do not have the same trouble
obtaining financing for their Y2K corrections as Mr. Davis and Golden
Fields Agricultural Technologies. Moreover, Congress must deal with the
concerns that have recently been raised that there may be a ``credit
crunch'' this year with businesses, especially small businesses, unable
to obtain financing for any purposes if they are not Y2K compliant.
In addition to the costs involved, there is abundant evidence that
small businesses are, to date, generally unprepared for, and in certain
circumstances, unaware of the Y2K problem. The NFIB's most recent
survey indicates that 40 percent of small businesses don't plan on
taking action or do not believe the problem is serious enough to worry
about. In addition, the Gartner Group has estimated that only 5 percent
of small companies worldwide had repaired their Y2K computer problems
as of the third quarter of 1998.
The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act that the Senate is
considering today will serve the dual purpose of providing small
businesses with the means to continue operating successfully after
January 1, 2000, and making lenders and small firms more aware of the
dangers that lie ahead. The act requires the Small Business
Administration to establish a limited-term loan program whereby SBA
guarantees the principal amount of a loan made by a private lender to
assist small businesses in correcting Year 2000 computer problems. The
problem will also
[[Page 3310]]
provide working capital loans to small businesses that incur
substantial economic injury suffered as a direct result of its own Y2K
computer problems or some other entity's Y2K computer problems.
Each lender that participates in the SBA's 7(a) business loan program
is eligible to participate in the Y2K loan program. This includes more
than 6,000 lenders located across the country. To ensure that the SBA
can roll out the loan program promptly, the act permits a lender to
process Y2K loans pursuant to any of the procedures that the SBA has
already authorized for that lender. Moreover, to assist small business
that may have difficulty sustaining sufficient cash flows while
developing Y2K solutions, the loan program will permit flexible
financing terms so small businesses are able to service the new debt
with available cash flow. For example, under certain circumstances, a
borrower may defer principal payments for up to a year. Once the Y2K
problem is behind us, the act provides that the loan program will
sunset.
To assure that the loan program is made available to those small
businesses that need it and to increase awareness of the Y2K problem,
the legislation requires that SBA market this program aggressively to
all eligible lenders. Awareness of this loan program's availability is
of paramount importance. Financial institutions are currently required
by federal banking regulators to contact their customers to ensure that
they are Y2K compliant. The existence of a loan program designed to
finance Y2K corrections will give financial institutions a specific
solution to offer small companies that may not be eligible for
additional private capital and will focus the attention of financial
institutions and, in turn, their small business customers to the Y2K
problem. To increase awareness of this program, I have already
contacted the governor of each State to make them aware of the
potential availability of the program. Moreover, so that we can state
that we directed our best efforts to mitigating the Year 2000 problem,
I am seeking to find other ways that the Federal government can assist
State efforts to help small businesses become Y2K compliant.
The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act is a necessary step to
ensure that the economic health of this country is not marred by a
substantial number of small business failures following January 1,
2000, and that small businesses continue to be the fastest growing
segment of our economy in the Year 2000 and beyond.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield to my good friend and
distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the
Small Business Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague, the chairman of
the committee. I thank him for his work on this act and for his
leadership within the committee so that we can proceed as he has
described.
Most of the media attention with respect to the Y2K problem has been
on big businesses, the challenges they face and the costs they are
going to bear in order to fix the problem. But as my colleague has
mentioned, small businesses face the same effects of Y2K as big
businesses. However, they often have little or no resources available
to devote to detecting the extent of the problem or to developing a
workable and cost-effective solution. That is why we on the Small
Business Committee are proceeding with this particular response which I
think is most important.
It is in our economic best interest to make sure that all of our
small businesses, some 20 million if we include the self-employed--are
up and running soundly and effectively, creating jobs and providing
services, on and after January 1 of the year 2000.
There are a lot of questions about what the full impact of the Y2K
problem is going to be. Is it going to bring a whole series of
nationwide glitches? Could it, in fact, induce a worldwide recession?
One hears differing opinions on the extent of that. I was recently at
the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and there was a
considerable amount of focus there from sizable numbers of companies on
this issue. I think it is fair to say that here in the United States we
have had a greater response than has taken place in Europe or in many
other countries. But it is interesting to note that the Social Security
Administration, I understand, spent about 6 years and some 600 people,
and spent upwards of $1 billion, in order to be ready and capable of
dealing with the Y2K problem. Other Departments have spent significant
amounts of money as well and have had very large teams of people
working in order to guarantee that they are going to be safe. Compared
to that, you have very large entities in Europe and elsewhere that are
only just beginning.
So, if you look at the numbers of people and the amount of money and
the amount of years people have been spending in order to try to put
together solutions--obviously those experiences can be helpful to many
other entities around the world as we cope with this problem. But the
bottom line is, we know our economy is interdependent. We know that
most of our technology, interdependent as it is, is date-dependent, and
much of it is incapable of distinguishing between the years 2000 and
1900.
We have 10 short months now to become completely Y2K compliant, and
national studies have found that the majority of small businesses in
the United States are not ready and they are not even preparing.
Specifically, the 1998 ``Survey of Small and Mid-Sized Business'' by
Arthur Andersen Enterprise Group and National Small Business United
found that only 62 percent of all small- and mid-sized businesses have
even begun addressing Y2K issues. The good news is that a greater
percentage of small- and mid-sized businesses are preparing for Y2K
than last summer. The bad news is that they have only just begun that
process and a significant group is taking a ``wait and see'' approach.
On a local level, Y2K consultants and commercial lenders in
Massachusetts, from Bank Boston to the Bay State Savings Bank, tell us
of reactions to the Y2K dilemma that vary from complete and total
ignorance, or complete and total denial, to paralysis or simply to
apathy.
I will give you an example. Bob Miller, the president of Cambridge
Resource Group in Braintree, MA, shared with us what he has observed.
Though his company specializes in the Y2K compliance of systems with
embedded processors for Fortune 1000 companies and large State
projects, he knows how real the technology problem is and how expensive
a consultant can be. He has tried to help small companies through free
seminars, but literally no one shows up. One time, in Maine, only 2 out
of 400 companies responded. ``Small businesses just don't get it. Many
think it is a big company problem, but it is not. It will bite them,''
says Mr. Miller. He advises companies to start now, and to build a
contingency plan first, because it is so late in the game.
The owner of Coventry Spares, Ltd., a vintage motorcycle parts
company, would not disagree with that. John Healy was one of those
small business owners who thought it was somebody else's problem. It
couldn't happen to him. Luckily for John Healy and his business, he got
a scare and so he decided to test his computer system by creating a
purchase order for motorcycle pistons with a receivable date of early
January 2000. So what happened when he put the order into his system?
He punched a key and he waited for his software to calculate how many
days it would take to receive the order. He got back a series of
question marks.
Then he turned to the company's software that publishes its ``Vintage
Bikes'' magazine and he tested it with a 2000 date. His indispensable
machine told him the date was not valid.
Mr. Healy's computer problems are, ironically, compounded by his own
Yankee ingenuity. As his business evolved, he combined and customized a
mishmash of computer systems. It saved money, it worked well, handling
[[Page 3311]]
everything from the payroll to inventory management, but making these
software programs of the various computers Y2K-compliant is all but
impossible. As Mr. Healy said:
``[These programs] handle 85 percent of the business that
makes me money. If I didn't fix this by the year 2000, I
couldn't do anything. I'd be a dead duck in the water.''
When all is said and done, Mr. Healy estimates he is going to pay
more than $20,000 to become Y2K-compliant, and that includes the cost
of new hardware, operating system and database software and conversion.
So, how do we reach those small business owners who have been slow to
act, or who, to date, have no plans at all to act? How do we help them
facilitate assessment and remediation of their businesses? We believe
the way we do that is by making the solution affordable.
According to the same Andersen and NSBU study that I quoted a moment
ago, 54 percent of all respondents said ``affording the cost [was the]
most difficult challenge in dealing with information technology.''
That sentiment was echoed by David Eddy, who is a Y2K consultant who
owns Software Sales Group in Boston, and who testified before the Small
Business Committee when we were putting this legislation together last
June. Mr. Eddy recently wrote:
``Basically, all of our customers are having trouble paying
for Y2K. . ..The cost varies from client to client, but no
business has ``extra'' money around, so they are
struggling.''
So, Mr. President, cost is a very legitimate, albeit risky, reason to
delay addressing the Y2K problem--saving until you are a little ahead
or waiting until the last possible moment to take on new debt to
finance changes. Those are strategies that many companies are forced to
adopt, but those are strategies that can still leave you behind the
eight ball as of January 1, year 2000.
If you own your own facility, you have to ask yourself, Is the
security system going to need an upgrade? What will the replacement
cost be? Will simple things work? Will the sprinklers in your plant
work? What happens if there is a fire? If you own a dry cleaning store
and you hire a consultant to assess the equipment in your franchise,
will remediation eat up all of your profit and set you back?
These are the basic questions of any small business person in this
country. Some business owners literally cannot afford to hear the
answers to those questions. It may come down to a choice between debt
or dissolution, or rolling the dice, which is what a lot of small
companies are deciding to do. They say to themselves: I can't really
afford to do it, I am not sure what the implications are, I am small
enough that I assume I can put the pieces together at the last moment--
so they are going to roll the dice and see what happens.
There is another problem with waiting. Just as regulators have forced
lenders to bring their systems into compliance, the lenders themselves
are now requesting the same compliance of existing borrowers and loan
applicants. In Massachusetts, for instance, the Danvers Savings Bank,
one of the State's top SBA lenders, has stated publicly that it will
not make loans to businesses unless they are in control of their Y2K
problems. The bank fears that if a small company isn't prepared for Y2K
problems, it could adversely affect its business, which could then,
obviously, adversely affect the loan that the bank has made and the
small business ability to repay the loan, which adversely affects the
bottom line for the bank.
The Year 2000 Readiness Act gives eligible business owners a viable
option. And that is why we ask our colleagues to join in supporting
this legislation today.
This legislation will make it easy for lenders, and timely for
borrowers, and it is similar to the small business loan bill that I
introduced last year in Congress. It expands the 7(a) loan program, one
of the most popular and successful guaranteed lending programs of the
Small Business Administration.
Currently, this program gives small businesses credit, including
working capital, to grow their companies. If the Year 2000 Readiness
Act is enacted, those loans can be used until the end of the year 2000
to address Y2K problems ranging from the upgrade or replacement of
date-dependent equipment and software to relief from economic injury
caused by Y2K disruptions, such as power outages or temporary gaps in
deliveries of supplies and inventory.
The terms of 7(a) loans are very familiar to those, obviously, within
the small business community, and they have taken advantage of them.
The fact is, these loans are very easy to apply for and to process.
They are structured to be approved or denied, in most cases, in less
than 48 hours. So for those who fear paperwork or fear the old
reputation of some Government agencies, we believe this is a place
where they can find a quick answer and quick help to their problems. We
expect the average Y2K loan to be less than $100,000.
In addition, Mr. President, to give lenders an incentive to make 7(a)
loans to small businesses for Y2K problems, the act raises the
Government guaranties of the existing program by 10 percent, from 80
percent to 90 percent for loans of $100,000 or less, and from 75 to 85
percent for loans of more than $100,000. Under special circumstances,
the act also raises the dollar cap of loan guarantees from $750,000 to
$1 million for Y2K loans.
Eligible lenders can use the SBA Express Pilot Program to process Y2K
loans. Under this pilot, lenders can use their own paperwork and make
same-day approval, so there can be a streamlined process without a
whole lot of duplication for small businesses, which we know is one of
the things that most drives small business people crazy. The tradeoff
for the ease and loan approval autonomy is a greater share of the loan
risk. Unlike the general 7(a) loans, SBA Express Pilot loans are
guaranteed at 50 percent.
We know that many small-business owners also have shoestring budgets,
and that they are going to be hard-pressed to pay for another monthly
expense. With this in mind, we have designed the Small Business Year
2000 Readiness Act to encourage lenders to work with small businesses
addressing Y2K-related problems by arranging for affordable financing
terms. For example, when quality of credit comes into question, lenders
are directed to resolve reasonable doubts about the applicant's ability
to repay the debt in favor of the borrower. And, when warranted,
borrowers can get a moratorium for up to 1 year on principal payments
on Y2K 7(a) loans, beginning when the loans are originated.
Mr. President, one final comment. As important as this Y2K loan
program is, in my judgment, it has to be available in addition to, not
in lieu of, the existing 7(a) program. It is a vital capital source for
small businesses. We provided 42,000 loans in 1998, and they totaled $9
billion. That is not an insignificant sum. What we do not want to have
happen is to diminish the economic up side of that kind of lending.
With defaults down--and they are--and recoveries up and the
Government's true cost under the subsidy rate at 1.39 percent, we
should not create burdens that would slow or reverse the positive trend
that we have been able to create.
To protect the existing 7(a) program, we have to make certain that it
is adequately funded for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. And because the
Y2K loan program is going to be part of the 7(a) business lending
program, funds that have already been appropriated for the 7(a) program
can be used for the Y2K loan program.
Already this year, demand for that lending is running very high.
Typically, the demand for 7(a) loans increases by as much as 10 percent
in the spring and in the summer. So we are entering the high season of
cyclical lending within the SBA itself. If that holds true for the
current fiscal year, the program may use nearly all of its funds to
meet the regular loan demand. There may be even greater demand for Y2K
lending as people become more aware of the problem with increased
publicity and discussion of it in a national dialogue.
Under these circumstances, we need to be diligent about monitoring
the 7(a) loan program to make certain
[[Page 3312]]
there is adequate funding. I appreciate that Chairman Bond, who also
serves on the Appropriations Committee, shares this concern and has
agreed to work with me to secure the necessary funds targeted
specifically for the Y2K loan program, and I thank Chairman Bond for
his commitment.
I also thank Senators Bennett and Dodd and the Small Business
Administration for working with our committee on this important
initiative. We have tackled some tough policy issues, and the give-and-
take, I believe, has made this legislation more helpful for businesses
that face the Y2K problems.
I am very hopeful that all of our colleagues will join with us in
voting yes today and that our friends on the House side will act as
quickly as possible to pass S. 314. It is, obviously, a good program
that will have a profound impact on the year 2000 and on the long-term
economic prospects of our Nation.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Bond.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member, once again. His
work on this measure, as so many others, and the work of his staff has
been essential to assuring a product that meets the needs of small
business and also deals with legitimate concerns which were raised
initially by the SBA and others, and we are grateful to him for that
effort. I thank him for his strong leadership and the very compelling
case he makes.
Obviously, all the members of the Small Business Committee believe
very strongly that small business needs some help, and we would love to
have more people talking about the Y2K problem, but I should advise my
colleagues, and those who are watching, that there is, as we speak, a
hearing going on in the Y2K Committee where Senator Dodd and Senator
Bennett are exploring some of the other issues.
This is really ``Y2K Day'' in the Senate because, as I stated in the
opening, when we finish the vote on this measure--which I hope will be
overwhelming in favor of it--there will be a confidential hearing
regarding the Y2K issue in room S-407, and at 2:15 p.m., we will begin
consideration of a resolution to fund this special committee dealing
with the Y2K issues.
I noticed on one of the morning television shows that we are getting
some good coverage and discussion in the media about the Y2K problem,
and today certainly the Senate has explored in many, many different
aspects how we can help smooth the transition to January 1, 2000, and
beyond, when computers, if they are not fixed, might think that it is
1900 all over again.
Mr. President, we invite Members who want to come down to speak on
this issue to do so. We hope they will have some time. We have 20
minutes more. And after, I may use some time on another matter, but I
want to find out if there are other Members who wish to address the Y2K
problem first.
I yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 314, the
Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. I also want to thank Chairman
Bond and Senator Kerry for their leadership on this issue. Without this
legislation a large percentage of the 97,000 small businesses in
Louisiana and nearly 5 million small business nationwide would not have
access to needed credit necessary to repair Year 2000 computer
problems.
According to recent studies and information provided to the Senate
Small Business Committee, as estimated 750,000 small businesses are at
risk of being temporarily shut down or incurring significant financial
loss. Another four million businesses could be affected in other ways.
In fact, any small business is at risk if it uses any computers in its
business or related computer applications. For example, any e-commerce
business or other businesses that use credit card payments, the use of
a service bureau for its payroll, or automated manufacturing equipment
could be affected. It is difficult to predict how serious the
implications could be. But it is clear that if the Congress does not
act, millions of small businesses, so important to our national
economy, and millions of families dependent on these enterprises will
suffer greatly.
A recent survey conducted on behalf of National Federation of
Independent Business, NFIB, by Arthur Andersen indicated that many
small businesses will incur significant costs to become Y2K compliant
and are very concerned. The survey found that to become Y2K compliant,
29 percent of small to medium sized businesses will purchase additional
hardware, 24 percent will replace existing hardware and 17 percent will
need to convert their entire computer system. Then, when asked their
most difficult challenge relating to their information technology, more
than 54 percent of the businesses surveyed cited ``affording the
cost.''
However, according to the NFIB, while these studies indicated many
are worried, 40 percent of small businesses don't plan on taking action
or do not believe the problem is serious enough to worry about.
Fortunately, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, tries to
address this problem as well as other credit issues, facing small
businesses. First and foremost, it allows the Small Business
Administration the authority to expand its guaranteed loan program to
provide these businesses with the means to continue operating
successfully after January 1, 2000. Moreover, it will provide technical
assistance in order to help educate lenders and small firms about the
dangers that lie ahead. And, finally, this measure allows small
businesses to use Y2K loan proceeds to offset economic injury sustained
after the year 2000, due to associated computer glitch problems.
Mr. President, with less than a year to go, and many small businesses
not prepared for the unforeseeable consequences, Congress must respond
expeditiously with the passage of this legislation. Without adequate
capital and computer related costs that could result in millions of
dollars of damages, the economic consequences could be severe. This
legislation is a very positive step to help mitigate the potential loss
of thousands of small businesses and the associated impact on our
States' and national economies.
I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this critical
legislation and know that the Congress will be able to send a positive
message with the enactment of this legislation in the very near future.
Thank you, I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there have been a number of hearings on
Y2K. One was held yesterday in the Judiciary Committee. And in that
meeting I offered a very simple and direct principle: Our goal should
be to encourage Y2K compliance. No matter how much we talk about
liabilities or who is to blame, or anything else, the bottom line is
for people who want to go from December 31 to January 1, at the end of
this year, we should look for compliance. That is what we are doing by
passing this, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, S. 314. It
offers help to small businesses working to remedy their computer
systems before the millennium bug hits.
I want to commend Senators Bond and Kerry for their bipartisan
leadership in the Small Business Committee on this bill. It is going to
support small businesses around the country in the Y2K remedial
efforts. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.
We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy,
whether it is the corner market in a small city, or the family farm, or
a smalltown doctor. In my home State of Vermont, 98 percent of the
businesses are small businesses. They have limited resources. That is
why it is important to provide these small businesses with the
resources to correct their Y2K problems --but to do it now.
Last month, for example, I hosted a Y2K conference in Vermont to help
small businesses prepare for the year
[[Page 3313]]
2000. Hundreds of small business owners from across Vermont attended
this conference. They took time out of their work so they could learn
how to minimize or eliminate Y2K computer problems. Those who could not
join us at the site joined us by interactive television around the
State.
Vermonters are working hard to identify their vulnerabilities. They
should be encouraged and assisted in these efforts. That is the right
approach. The right approach is not to seek blame but to fix as many of
the problems ahead of time as we can. Ultimately, the best business
policy--actually, the best defense against Y2K-based lawsuits--is to be
Y2K compliant.
The prospect of Y2K problems requires remedial efforts and increased
compliance, not to look back on January 1 and find out who was at fault
but to look forward on March 2 and say what can we do to fix it.
Unfortunately, not all small businesses are doing enough to address
the year 2000 issue because of a lack of resources in many cases. They
face Y2K problems both directly and indirectly through their suppliers,
customers and financial institutions. As recently as last October the
NFIB testified: ``A fifth of them do not understand that there is a Y2K
problem. . . . They are not aware of it. A fifth of them are currently
taking action. A fifth have not taken action but plan to take action,
and two-fifths are aware of the problem but do not plan to take any
action prior to the year 2000.'' Indeed, the Small Business
Administration recently warned that 330,000 small businesses are at
risk of closing down as a result of Y2K problems, and another 370,000
could be temporarily or permanently hobbled.
Federal and State government agencies have entire departments working
on this problem. Utilities, financial institutions, telecommunications
companies, and other large companies have information technology
divisions working to make corrections to keep their systems running.
They have armies of workers--but small businesses do not.
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, from the city
corner market to the family farm to the small-town doctor. In my home
State of Vermont, 98 percent of the businesses are small businesses
with limited resources. That is why it is so important to provide small
businesses with the resources to correct their Y2K problems now.
Last month, I hosted a Y2K conference in Vermont to help small
businesses prepare for 2000. Hundreds of small business owners from
across Vermont attended the conference to learn how to minimize or
eliminate their Y2K computer problems. Vermonters are working hard to
identify their Y2K vulnerabilities and prepare action plans to resolve
them. They should be encouraged and assisted in these important
efforts.
This is the right approach. We have to fix as many of these problems
ahead of time as we can. Ultimately, the best business policy and the
best defense against Y2K-based lawsuits is to be Y2K compliant.
I am studying the Report from our Special Committee on the Year 2000
Technology Problem and thank Chairman Bennett and Vice Chairman Dodd
for the work of that Committee. I note that they are just beginning
their assessment of litigation. As they indicate in the Report released
today: ``The Committee plans to hold hearings and work closely with the
Judiciary and Commerce Committees to make legislative proposals in this
area.''
I understand that the Special Committee is planning hearings on Y2K
litigation soon. As best anyone has been able to indicate to me, only
52 Y2K-related lawsuits have been commenced to date. Of those, several
have already been concluded with 12 having been settled and 8
dismissed.
At our Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week we heard from a
small businessman from Michigan who was one of the first Y2K plaintiffs
in the country. He had to sue to obtain relief from a company that sold
him a computer and cash register system that would not accept credit
cards that expired after January 1, 2000 and crashed.
We also heard from an attorney who prevailed on behalf of thousands
of doctors in an early Y2K class action against a company that provided
medical office software that was not Y2K compliant.
Recent legislative proposals by Senator Hatch and by Senator McCain
raise many questions that need to be answered before they move forward.
I look to the hearings before the Special Committee and to additional
hearings before the Judiciary Committee to gather the factual
information that we need in order to make good judgments about these
matters. We heard Monday of a number of serious concerns from the
Department of Justice with these recent proposals. Those concerns are
real and need to be addressed.
If we do not proceed carefully, broad liability limitation
legislation could reward the irresponsible at the expense of the
innocent. That would not be fair or responsible. Removing
accountability from the law removes one of the principal incentives to
find solutions before problems develop.
Why would congressional consideration or passage of special immunity
legislation make anyone more likely to expend the resources needed to
fix its computer systems to be ready for the millennium? Is it not at
least as likely to have just the opposite effect? Why should
individuals, businesses and governments act comprehensively now if the
law is changed to allow you to wait, see what problems develop and then
use the 90-day ``cooling off'' period after receiving detailed written
notice of the problem to think about coming into compliance? Why not
wait and see what solutions are developed by others and draw from them
later in the three-month grace period, after the harm is done and only
if someone complains?
I would rather continue the incentives our civil justice systems
allows to encourage compliance and remediation efforts now, in advance
of the harm. I would rather reward responsible business owners who are
already making the investments necessary to have their computer systems
fixed for Y2K.
I sense that some may be seeking to use fear of the Y2K millennium
bug to revive failed liability limitation legislation of the past.
These controversial proposals may be good politics in some circles, but
they are not true solutions to the Y2K problem. Instead, we should be
looking to the future and creating incentives in this country and
around the world for accelerating our efforts to resolve potential Y2K
problems before they cause harm.
I also share the concerns of the Special Committee that ``disclosure
of Y2K compliance is poor.'' We just do not have reliable assessments
of the problem or of how compliance efforts are going. In particular, I
remain especially concerned with the Special Committee's report that:
``Despite an SEC rule requiring Y2K disclosure of public corporations,
companies are reluctant to report poor compliance.'' I have heard
estimates that hundreds if not thousands of public companies are not in
compliance with SEC disclosure rules designed to protect investors and
the general public.
I hope that the Special Committee will follow through on its
announced ``plans to address certain key sectors in 1999 where there
has been extreme reluctance to disclose Y2K compliance.'' We should not
be rewarding companies that have not fulfilled their disclosure
responsibilities by providing them any liability limitation
protections.
On the contrary, after all the talk earlier this year about the
importance of the rule of law, we ought to do more to enforce these
fundamental disclosure requirements. As the Special Committee reports:
``Without meaningful disclosure, it is impossible for firms to properly
assess their own risks and develop necessary contingency plans.
Disclosure is also important in the context of congressional
oversight. The Special Committee will continue to promote this
important goal in 1999.'' The Senate should do nothing to undercut this
effort toward greater disclosure in accordance with law.
[[Page 3314]]
Sweeping liability protection has the potential to do great harm.
Such legislation may restrict the rights of consumers, small
businesses, family farmers, State and local governments and the Federal
Government from seeking redress for the harm caused by Y2K computer
failures. It seeks to restructure the laws of the 50 states through
federal preemption. Moreover, it runs the risk of discouraging
businesses from taking responsible steps to cure their Y2K problems now
before it is too late.
By focusing attention on liability limiting proposals instead of on
the disclosures and remedial steps that need to be taken now, Congress
is being distracted from what should be our principal focus--
encouraging Y2K compliance and the prompt remedial efforts that are
necessary now, in 1999.
The international aspect of this problem is also looming as one of
the most important. As Americans work hard to bring our systems into
compliance, we encounter a world in which other countries are not as
far along in their efforts and foreign suppliers to U.S. companies pose
significant risks for all of us. This observation is supported by the
Report of the Special Committee, as well. We must, therefore, consider
whether creating a liability limitation model will serve our interests
internationally.
The Administration is working hard to bring the Federal Government
into compliance. President Clinton decided to have the Social Security
Administration's computers overhauled first and then tested and
retooled and retested, again. The President was able to announce on
December 28 that social security checks will be printed without any
glitches in January 2000. That is progress.
During the last Congress, I joined with a number of other interested
Senators to introduce and pass into law the consensus bill known as
``The Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act.'' We worked
on a bipartisan basis with Senator Bennett, Senator Dodd, the
Administration, industry representatives and others to reach agreement
on a bill to facilitate information sharing to encourage Y2K
compliance. The new law, enacted less than five months ago, is working
to encourage companies to share Y2K solutions and test results. It
promotes company-to-company information sharing while not limiting
rights of consumers.
The North American Electric Reliability Council got a great response
from its efforts to obtain detailed Y2K information from various
industries. We also know that large telephone companies are sharing
technical information over websites designed to assist each other in
solving year 2000 problems. Under a provision I included, that law also
established a National Y2K Information Clearinghouse and Website at the
General Services Administration. That website is a great place for
small businesses to go to get started in their Y2K efforts.
If, after careful study, there are other reasonable efforts that
Congress can make to encourage more computer preparedness for the
millennium, then we should work together to consider them and work
together to implement them.
Legislative proposals to limit Y2K liability now pending before the
Commerce and Judiciary Committees were printed in last Wednesday's
Congressional Record. Given the significant impact these bills might
have on State contract and tort law and the legal rights of all
Americans, I trust that the Senate will allow all interested Committees
to consider them carefully before rushing to pass liability limitation
provisions that have not been justified or thoroughly examined.
The prospect of Y2K problems requires remedial efforts and increased
compliance, which is what the ``Small Business Year 2000 Readiness
Act,'' S.314, will promote. It is not an excuse for cutting off the
rights of those who will be harmed by the inaction of others, turning
our States' civil justice administration upside down, or immunizing
those who recklessly disregard the coming problem to the detriment of
their customers and American consumers.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Small
Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, of which I am an original cosponsor.
I would like to begin by thanking Senator Bond, who serves as
Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, for his leadership on
this important issue. As a member of the Small Business Committee and a
Senator from a state where virtually all the businesses are small
businesses, I strongly believe that assisting small businesses prepare
for the Year 2000 must be a top priority.
So many aspects of our lives are influenced by computers. I believe
the Y2K computer glitch is an issue of such importance that it demands
decisive action on our part, because any delay at this point will make
this problem exponentially more difficult to solve.
The bill before us today authorizes loan guarantees for small
businesses to help with Y2K compliance. Loan guarantees will permit
small businesses to assess their computers' Y2K compatibility, identify
changes to assure compatibility, and finance purchase or repair of
computer equipment and software to ensure that is compatible with Y2K.
The loans will also allow small businesses to hire third party
consultants to support their efforts.
Maine has an historical record of self-reliance and small business
enterprise, and I am extremely supportive of the role the federal
government can play in promoting small business growth and development.
Small businesses are increasingly essential to America's prosperity,
and they should and will play a vital role in any effort to revitalize
our communities if we help them enter the 21st Century in a strong
position.
As we all know, this problem stems from a simple glitch--how the more
than 200 million computers in the United States store the date within
their internal clocks.
Some computers and software may not run or start if the internal
clock fails to recognize ``00'' as a proper year. The computer can
continue waiting for you to enter what it thinks is a correct date and
prevent you from accessing your records until you have done so. Without
access to your records, you will be unable to track your inventory,
sales, or even your bank accounts.
I began to wonder what the effects would be on small business when
the Commerce Committee held a hearing on the issue last year. And after
questioning officials, specifically Deputy Secretary of Commerce Robert
Mallett, it became evident that many small businesses simply didn't
have the kind of time and resources that many larger business may have
at their disposal to fix this potentially serious problem.
At the Maine forums I sponsored last year as a member of both the
Commerce and Small Business Committees, I worked to educate small
businesses on the Y2K threat, and it was a learning experience for me
as well.
The impact of Y2K on the small business community could be
devastating. According to a National Federation of Independent Business
and Wells Fargo Bank study, 82 percent of small businesses are at risk.
Fortunately, it doesn't have to be that way. With the benefit of
foresight and proper planning, we can diffuse this ticking time bomb
and ensure that the business of the nation continues on without a
hitch--or a glitch.
From a technical standpoint, the necessary corrections are not
difficult to make. However, determining that there's a problem, finding
people qualified to fix the problem, and crafting a solution to fit the
individual needs of different computers and programs poses significant
challenges.
We must put ourselves in the position that a small business or
entrepreneur is in. Consider that this problem effects more than just
your business. By checking your system you are only halfway to solving
the problem. You must also take time to ensure your supplier,
distributer, banker, and accountant are also ``cured'' of the Year 2000
problem.
For example, if you manufacture a product on deadline, you'll want to
make sure your computers will be able to keep track of your delivery
schedule, inventory, and accounts receivable
[[Page 3315]]
and payable. If your system fails to do this, the consequences could be
debilitating for a business.
But think about this: suppose your suppliers aren't compatible, and
their system crashes. You may not receive the raw materials you need to
get your product to market on time--devastating if you're in a ``just
in time'' delivery schedule with your supplier. And what happens when
your shipper's computers go down for the count?
That is why it is so important that we take steps to fix the problem
now. The year 2000 is almost upon us, and each day that goes by trades
away valuable time.
For the vast majority of businesses, there are five simple steps
toward compliance. First, awareness of the problem. Second, assessing
which systems could be affected and prioritizing their conversion or
replacement. Third, renovating or replacing computer systems. Fourth,
validating or testing the computer systems. And fifth, implementing the
systems.
The bill before us today will help small business address these
steps, and I urge my colleagues to join in an overwhelming show of
support for our nation's small businesses by voting for this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Small Business
Committee and cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased the Senate is
acting expeditiously on S. 314, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness
Act. Making affordable government guaranteed loans available to small
businesses to correct the computer problem associated with the Year
2000, or Y2K, is a critical part of that the federal government can do
to ensure that all businesses can become Y2K compliant by the turn of
the century.
As everyone knows by now, experts are concerned that on January 1,
2000, many computers will recognize a double zero not as the year 2000
but as the year 1900. This technical glitch could cause the computers
to stop running altogether or start generating erroneous data. It is a
serious problem that should be taken seriously by businesses, large and
small.
Unfortunately, surveys show that many small businesses are not taking
the action they should be taking to fix the problem and as a result
could face costly consequences on January 1, 2000. According to recent
research, nearly 25 percent of all businesses, of which 80 percent are
small companies, have not begun to prepare for the serious system
issues that are predicted to occur on January 1, 2000.
One of the reasons for this lack of preparedness by small businesses
could be the lack of access to funds to pay for the needed repairs.
That is why the Senate Small Business Committee reported by a unanimous
vote this legislation to establish a special loan program for small
businesses to pay for Y2K repairs. Our hope is to move this legislation
expeditiously through the 106th Congress so that the special loan
program established by this bill will be available in time to do Y2K
repairs. The full extent of the year 2000 problem is unknown, but we
can reduce the possibility of problems by taking action now.
System failures can be costly and that's why it's better to avoid
them rather than fix them after failure. As we count down the remaining
months of this century, let's give small businesses who have been the
backbone of our great economic prosperity access to the funds they need
to correct the Y2K computer bug. For many of our small businesses, S.
314 could help keep them from suffering severe financial distress or
failure.
S. 314 requires the Small Business Administration to establish a
limited-term government guaranteed loan program to guarantee loans made
by private lenders to small businesses to correct their own Y2K
problems or provide relief from economic injuries sustained as a result
of its own or another entity's Y2K computer problems. It offers these
loans at more favorable terms than other government guaranteed loans
available to small businesses and it allows small businesses to defer
interest for the first year. The bill report language also includes a
provision I suggested allowing the favorable terms of this lending
program to be applied to loans already granted to small businesses that
were used primarily for Y2K repairs but under less favorable terms than
offered under this program. Since this loan program already passed the
Senate last year as a component of a larger bill, some small businesses
may have already made the decision to take out small business loans to
pay for Y2K repairs based on the reasonable expectation that this
program would be enacted into law.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 314, the Small
Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. The bill establishes a guaranteed
loan program for small businesses in order to remediate existing
computer systems or to purchase new Year 2000 compliant equipment. The
loan program would be modeled after the Small Business Administration's
popular 7(a) loan program, which has provided thousands of small
businesses funding to grow their operations.
Many small businesses are having difficulty determining how they will
be affected by the millennium bug and what they should do about it.
Many of them face not only technological but also severe financial
challenges in becoming Y2K-compliant. This legislation will help
provide peace of mind to the small business community throughout the
nation, which we must help prepare now for the coming crisis.
The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act would encourage business
to focus on Year 2000 computer problems before they are upon us. A
successful program being operated in my State underscores the benefits
to such forethought.
Through the efforts of the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP), a program funded through the National Institutes of Science and
Technology, small businesses have been successful in addressing their
Y2K problems. With the use of an assessment tool, the Maine MEP is able
to provide small business owners road maps for addressing critical Y2K
issues concerning accounting systems, computerized production
equipment, environmental management systems, and supplier
vulnerabilities.
Once the Maine MEP completes an assessment of technical Y2K problems,
it instructs the small business owner on how to apply for a loan from
the Small Business Administration. As it turns out, this step is
crucial. Small business owners have commented that, while they need
help in determining their Y2K exposure, it is just as important to have
a place to turn for funding so that they can take action to correct
possible problems. Because businesses often do not budget for Y2K
problems, it is vital to give businesses some assurance that they will
be able to borrow the funds necessary to remediate their systems. The
Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act does exactly that.
My home State of Maine has over 35,000 small businesses, which were
responsible for all of the net new jobs created in our State from 1992
through 1996. With their diversity and innovation, small businesses are
the backbone of our economy and the engine fueling job growth.
Mr. President, by their very definition entrepreneurs are risk
managers. In the years that I have been working with small businesses,
I am aware of countless experiences where the entrepreneurial spirit
has propelled business owners to overcome major obstacles to succeed.
With the financial assistance that this new SBA loan program will
offer, it is my expectation that small businesses will indeed succeed
in squashing their Y2K bug.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to see that the Senate
passed S. 314, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, today. I
introduced this bill with Senators Christopher S. Bond, John F. Kerry,
Robert F. Bennett, Christopher J. Dodd, and Olympia Snowe on January
27, 1999. S. 314 establishes a loan guarantee program to help small
businesses prepare for the year 2000. Because our economy is
interdependent, we must make sure that our small businesses are still
up and running and providing services on January 1, 2000. This bill
will help ensure that that is the case.
[[Page 3316]]
I began warning about the Y2K problem 3 years ago. Since that time,
people have begun to listen and progress has been made on the Y2K
front. The federal government and large corporations are expected to
have their computers functioning on January 1, 2000. Good news indeed.
But small businesses continue to lag behind in fixing the millennium
problem. I am confident that the Readiness Act will help small
businesses remediate their computer systems and I urge the House to
consider it forthwith. There is no time to waste.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, most small businesses in Vermont rely on
electronic systems to operate. Many of these businesses are looking to
the Year 2000 with apprehension or outright despair. Small businesses
rely on microprocessors for manufacturing equipment, telecommunications
for product delivery, and the mainstay of data storage--computer chips.
These businessmen and women are concerned about the financial effects
of the Year 2000 Computer Bug will have on their efforts to remedy the
problem, as well as those after-effects caused by system failures. This
is why I firmly believe that the quick enactment of Senator Bond's
bill, S. 314, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act should be a
top priority for Congress.
The legislation will go a long way toward providing vitally needed
loans for the nation's small businesses. This bill serves three
purposes: first, it will authorize the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) to expand its guaranteed loan program so eligible
small businesses have the means to continue operating successfully
after January 1, 2000. Second, the bill will allow small businesses to
use Y2K loan proceeds to offset economic injury sustained after the
year 2000 as a result of Y2K problems. Third, the legislation will
highlight those potential vulnerabilities small businesses face from
Y2K so small businessmen and women understand the risks involved.
Unfortunately, while many small businesses are well aware of the Y2K
Millennium Bug, recent surveys indicate that a significant proportion
of them do not plan on taking action because they do not believe it is
a serious enough threat. This bill will raise awareness of Y2K risks so
small businesses who may face problems will choose to upgrade their
hardware and software computer systems. As costs of doing so could be
prohibitive for small businesses the legislation will meet the
financial needs of small businesses by ensuring access to guaranteed
SBA loans.
The operation of this legislation will remain the same as the current
SBA loan program, where the agency guarantees the principal amount of a
loan made by a private lender to assist new small businesses seeking to
correct Y2K computer problems. Those lenders currently participating in
the SBA's 7(a) business loan program will also be able to participate
in the Y2K loan program by accessing additional guaranteed loan funds.
Mr. President, I commend the efforts of Chairman Bond on this
legislation and I hope for its quick enactment. While this legislation
will not eradicate the potential effects Y2K may have on electronic
systems, it will at least ensure that resources are available to those
small businesses who try to protect themselves from the threat, or
recuperate following a Y2K-related difficulty.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning S.
314. I am pleased that the Senate took a step forward today to help
small businesses prepare for the Year 2000 Problem. I am very concerned
about Y2K's potential affect on small businesses and rural communities,
particularly in my home state of Nebraska where technology is
increasingly playing a vital role in all aspects of commerce. In
addition to the many small businesses that use technology in everyday
transactions, Nebraska is home to a growing high-technology industry
that could be derailed if we fail to take additional steps to solve the
Year 2000 problem.
High-technology companies account for a significant portion of
Nebraska's economic output. According to the United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics, forty-four of every one-thousand private sector
workers in Nebraska are employed by high-tech firms at an average
salary of $37,000. Astonishingly, that's nearly $15,000 more than the
average private sector wage.
This rapidly growing sector of Nebraska's economy is a testament to
the ingenuity and work ethic that characterize the citizens of our
state. From the data processing industry in Omaha to the
telecommunications and technology interests in Lincoln to electronic
retail commerce and agribusiness interests in the panhandle, Nebraskans
are using and developing unique technologies to improve their lives.
It's clear that the information age has arrived on the plains as nearly
one-fourth of Nebraska's exports come through high-tech trade.
Currently, Nebraska ranks 32nd in high-tech employment and 38th in
high-tech average wage. The hard work of community leaders across the
state has encouraged new technology companies to put down roots in
Nebraska. One of my top priorities is fostering the continued
development of advanced communications networks and providing
Nebraska's kids with the math, science and technology skills they need
to become productive members of this industry. Telemedicine, distance
learning and other telecommunications services offer exciting new
possibilities for our businesses, schools and labor force. I mention
these successes, to underscore how important technology has become not
only to Nebraska's economy but to the nation's economy.
S. 314 provides a new resource to guarantee that the nation's small
businesses, high-tech and otherwise, will have somewhere to turn to for
financial help in solving this difficult problem. I hope the House will
follow the Senate's lead and quickly take up this important bill.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to take an opportunity to
congratulate the senior Senator from my home State for introducing and
reporting the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. This is an
important bill that I am happy to co-sponsor and support. The bill
represents an important step in Congress' ongoing efforts to limit the
scope and impact of the Year 2000 problem before it is too late. Last
year, we passed the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act,
which was an important first step in removing any legal barriers that
could prevent individuals and companies from doing everything possible
to eliminate Year 2000 problems before they happen. I was particularly
gratified that I was able to work with Senators Hatch and Leahy to
include the provisions of my temporary antitrust immunity bill, S.
2384, in last year's act. However, as I said at the time, the
Disclosure Act must be understood as only the first step in our efforts
to deal with this problem. Senator Bond's bill, along with the
liability bills working their way through the Commerce and Judiciary
Committees, on which I sit, are the next logical steps in this ongoing
effort.
Countless computer engineers and experts are busy right now trying to
solve or minimize the Year 2000 and related date failure problems. Part
of what makes this problem so difficult to address is that there is no
one Year 2000 problem. There are countless distinct date failure
problems, and no one silver bullet will solve them all. The absence of
any readily-available one-size-fits-all solution poses particularly
serious challenges for small business.
The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act addresses this problem by
providing loan guarantees to small businesses to remedy their year 2000
problems. The act provides the necessary resources so that small
businesses can nip this problem in the bud, so that the Year 2000
problem does not become the Year 2000 disaster.
The act is narrowly targeted at enabling small business to remedy
Year 2000 issues before they lead to costly damages and even more
costly litigation. Like the antitrust exemption I authored in the last
Congress, this provision automatically sunsets once the window of
opportunity for avoiding Year 2000 problems closes.
[[Page 3317]]
Finally, let me say, that like Year 2000 Information and Readiness
Disclosure Act we enacted last year, this law does not offer a complete
solution to the Year 2000 problem. There are many aspects to this
problem--both domestic and international--and there may be limits to
what government can do to solve this problem. These loan guarantees are
one constructive step Congress can take. Another constructive step is
to remove government-imposed obstacles that limit the ability of the
private sector to solve this problem. For example, Congress needs to
address the liability rules that govern litigation over potential Year
2000 problems. That process is ongoing in both the Commerce and
Judiciary Committees, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
on both committees to reach an acceptable approach that can be enacted
quickly.
The remaining issues are difficult, but we cannot shrink from
tackling the tough issues. Many have talked about the unprecedented
prosperity generated by our new, high-tech economy. I want to make sure
that the next century is driven by these high-tech engines of growth
and is stamped made in America. But we will not make the next century
an American Century by dodging the tough issues and hoping the Year
2000 problem will just go away. We need to keep working toward a
solution.
Resources to address the Year 2000 problem, particularly time, are
finite. They must be focused as fully as possible on remediation,
rather than on unproductive litigation. This issue is all about time,
and we have precious little left before the Year 2000 problem is upon
us. I hope we can continue to work together on legislation like this to
free up talented individuals to address this serious threat.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky,
Senator Bunning, be added as a cosponsor to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if there are no colleagues who wish to speak
on the Y2K bill, I ask unanimous consent that time continue to be
charged against me on S. 314 but that I may be permitted to speak up to
5 minutes as in morning business to introduce a piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 495 are
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and
Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to vote on passage of
S. 314.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The bill (S. 314) was passed, as follows:
S. 314
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 ``Small Business Year 2000
Readiness Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the failure of many computer programs to recognize the
Year 2000 may have extreme negative financial consequences in
the Year 2000, and in subsequent years for both large and
small businesses;
(2) small businesses are well behind larger businesses in
implementing corrective changes to their automated systems;
(3) many small businesses do not have access to capital to
fix mission critical automated systems, which could result in
severe financial distress or failure for small businesses;
and
(4) the failure of a large number of small businesses due
to the Year 2000 computer problem would have a highly
detrimental effect on the economy in the Year 2000 and in
subsequent years.
SEC. 3. YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) Program Established.--Section 7(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(27) Year 2000 computer problem program.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
``(i) the term `eligible lender' means any lender
designated by the Administration as eligible to participate
in the general business loan program under this subsection;
and
``(ii) the term `Year 2000 computer problem' means, with
respect to information technology, and embedded systems, any
problem that adversely effects the processing (including
calculating, comparing, sequencing, displaying, or storing),
transmitting, or receiving of date-dependent data--
``(I) from, into, or between--
``(aa) the 20th or 21st centuries; or
``(bb) the years 1999 and 2000; or
``(II) with regard to leap year calculations.
``(B) Establishment of program.--The Administration shall--
``(i) establish a loan guarantee program, under which the
Administration may, during the period beginning on the date
of enactment of this paragraph and ending on December 31,
2000, guarantee loans made by eligible lenders to small
business concerns in accordance with this paragraph; and
``(ii) notify each eligible lender of the establishment of
the program under this paragraph, and otherwise take such
actions as may be necessary to aggressively market the
program under this paragraph.
``(C) Use of funds.--A small business concern that receives
a loan guaranteed under this paragraph shall only use the
proceeds of the loan to--
``(i) address the Year 2000 computer problems of that small
business concern, including the repair and acquisition of
information technology systems, the purchase and repair of
software, the purchase of consulting and other third party
services, and related expenses; and
``(ii) provide relief for a substantial economic injury
incurred by the small business concern as a direct result of
the Year 2000 computer problems of the small business concern
or of any other entity (including any service provider or
supplier of the small business concern), if such economic
injury has not been compensated for by insurance or
otherwise.
``(D) Loan amounts.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(A) and
subject to clause (ii) of this subparagraph, a loan may be
made to a borrower under this paragraph even if the total
amount outstanding and committed (by participation or
otherwise) to the borrower from the business loan and
investment fund, the business guaranty loan financing
account,
[[Page 3318]]
and the business direct loan financing account would thereby
exceed $750,000.
``(ii) Exception.--A loan may not be made to a borrower
under this paragraph if the total amount outstanding and
committed (by participation or otherwise) to the borrower
from the business loan and investment fund, the business
guaranty loan financing account, and the business direct loan
financing account would thereby exceed $1,000,000.
``(E) Administration participation.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (2)(A), in an agreement to participate in a loan
under this paragraph, participation by the Administration
shall not exceed--
``(i) 85 percent of the balance of the financing
outstanding at the time of disbursement of the loan, if the
balance exceeds $100,000;
``(ii) 90 percent of the balance of the financing
outstanding at the time of disbursement of the loan, if the
balance is less than or equal to $100,000; and
``(iii) notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), in any case
in which the subject loan is processed in accordance with the
requirements applicable to the SBAExpress Pilot Program, 50
percent of the balance outstanding at the time of
disbursement of the loan.
``(F) Periodic reviews.--The Inspector General of the
Administration shall periodically review a representative
sample of loans guaranteed under this paragraph to mitigate
the risk of fraud and ensure the safety and soundness of the
loan program.
``(G) Annual report.--The Administration shall annually
submit to the Committees on Small Business of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report on the results of the
program carried out under this paragraph during the preceding
12-month period, which shall include information relating
to--
``(i) the total number of loans guaranteed under this
paragraph;
``(ii) with respect to each loan guaranteed under this
paragraph--
``(I) the amount of the loan;
``(II) the geographic location of the borrower; and
``(III) whether the loan was made to repair or replace
information technology and other automated systems or to
remedy an economic injury; and
``(iii) the total number of eligible lenders participating
in the program.''.
(b) Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall issue guidelines to carry out
the program under section 7(a)(27) of the Small Business Act,
as added by this section.
(2) Requirements.--Except to the extent that it would be
inconsistent with this section or section 7(a)(27) of the
Small Business Act, as added by this section, the guidelines
issued under this subsection shall, with respect to the loan
program established under section 7(a)(27) of the Small
Business Act, as added by this section--
(A) provide maximum flexibility in the establishment of
terms and conditions of loans originated under the loan
program so that such loans may be structured in a manner that
enhances the ability of the applicant to repay the debt;
(B) if appropriate to facilitate repayment, establish a
moratorium on principal payments under the loan program for
up to 1 year beginning on the date of the origination of the
loan;
(C) provide that any reasonable doubts regarding a loan
applicant's ability to service the debt be resolved in favor
of the loan applicant; and
(D) authorize an eligible lender (as defined in section
7(a)(27)(A) of the Small Business Act, as added by this
section) to process a loan under the loan program in
accordance with the requirements applicable to loans
originated under another loan program established pursuant to
section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (including the general
business loan program, the Preferred Lender Program, the
Certified Lender Program, the Low Documentation Loan Program,
and the SBAExpress Pilot Program), if--
(i) the eligible lender is eligible to participate in such
other loan program; and
(ii) the terms of the loan, including the principal amount
of the loan, are consistent with the requirements applicable
to loans originated under such other loan program.
(c) Repeal.--Effective on December 31, 2000, this section
and the amendments made by this section are repealed.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent for 7 minutes as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RESTRAINING CONGRESSIONAL IMPULSE TO FEDERALIZE MORE LOCAL CRIME LAWS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every Congress in which I have served--I
have served here since 1975--has focused significant attention on crime
legislation. It doesn't make any difference which party controls the
White House or either House of Congress, the opportunity to make our
mark on the criminal law has been irresistible. In fact, more than a
quarter of all the Federal criminal provisions enacted since the Civil
War--a quarter of all Federal criminal provisions since the Civil War--
have been enacted in the 16 years since 1980, more than 40 percent of
those laws have been created since 1970.
In fact, at this point the total number is too high to count. Last
month, a task force headed by former Attorney General Edwin Meese and
organized by the American Bar Association released a comprehensive
report. The best the task force could do was estimate the Federal
crimes to be over 3,300. Even that doesn't count the nearly 10,000
Federal regulations authorized by Congress that carry some sort of
sanction.
I have become increasingly concerned about the seemingly
uncontrollable impulse to react to the latest headline-grabbing
criminal caper with a new Federal prohibition. I have to admit, I
supported some of the initiatives. Usually, the expansion of Federal
authority by the creation of a new Federal crime is only incremental.
Some crime proposals, however, are more sweeping, and they invite
Federal enforcement authority into entirely new areas traditionally
handled by State and local law enforcement.
In the last Congress, for example, the majority on the Senate
Judiciary Committee reported to the Senate a juvenile crime bill that
would have granted Federal prosecutors broad new authority to
investigate and prosecute Federal crimes committed by juveniles--crimes
now normally deferred to the State. In addition, it would have
compelled the States to revise the manner in which they dealt with
juvenile crime, overridden all the State legislatures and told them to
comport with a host of new Federal mandates. I strenuously opposed this
legislation on federalism and other grounds.
Even the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court went out of his way
in his 1997 Year-End Report of the Federal Judiciary to caution against
``legislation pending in Congress to `federalize' certain juvenile
crimes.'' The Meese Task Force also cites this legislation ``as an
example of enhanced Federal attention where the need is neither
apparent nor demonstrated.''
The Meese Task Force report chided Congress for its indiscriminate
passage of new Federal crimes wholly duplicative of existing State
crimes. This Task Force was told by a number of people that these new
Federal laws are passed not because they were needed ``but because
Federal crime legislation in general is thought to be politically
popular. Put another way, it is not considered politically wise to vote
against crime legislation, even if it is misguided, unnecessary, and
even harmful.'' We all appreciate the hard truth in this observation.
While the juvenile crime bill was not enacted, we have not always
generated such restraint. The Meese Task Force examined a number of
other Federal crimes, such as drive-by shooting, interstate domestic
violence, murder committed by prison escapees, and others, that
encroach on criminal activity traditionally handled by the States--
almost reaching the point that jaywalking in a suburban subdivision
could become a Federal crime because that street may lead to a State
road which may lead to a Federal road. You see where we are going. The
Task Force found that federal prosecution of those traditional State
crimes was minimal or nonexistent. Given the dearth of Federal
enforcement, one is tempted to conclude that maybe the Federal laws do
not encroach and that any harm to State authority from passage of these
laws is similarly minimal. But the task force debunks the notion that
federalization is ``cost-free.''
Federalizing criminal activity already covered by State criminal laws
that are adequately enforced by State or local law enforcement
authorities
[[Page 3319]]
raises three significant concerns, even if the Federal enforcement
authority is not exercised.
First, dormant Federal criminal laws may be revived at the whim of a
federal prosecutor. Even the appearance--let alone the actual
practice--of selectively bringing Federal prosecutions against certain
individuals whose conduct also violates State laws, and the imposition
of disparate Federal and State sentences for essentially the same
underlying criminal conduct, offends our notions of fundamental
fairness and undermines respect for the entire criminal justice system.
The Task Force criticizes the ``expansive amount of unprincipled
overlap in which very large amounts of conduct are susceptible to
selection for prosecution as either federal or state crime is
intolerable.''
Second, every new Federal crime results in an expansion of Federal
law enforcement jurisdiction and further concentration of policing
power in the Federal government. Americans naturally distrust such
concentrations of power. That is the policy underlying our posse
comitatus law prohibiting the military from participating in general
law enforcement activities. According to the Task Force, Federal law
enforcement personnel have grown a staggering 96 percent from 1982 to
1993 compared to a growth rate of less than half that for State
personnel. The Task Force correctly notes in the report that:
Enactment of each new federal crime bestows new federal
investigative power on federal agencies, broadening their
power to intrude into individual ives. Expansion of federal
jurisdiction also creates the opportunity for greater
collection and maintenance of data at the federal level in an
era when various databases are computerized and linked.
Finally, and most significantly, Federal prosecutors are simply not
as accountable as a local prosecutor to the people of a particular
town, county or State. I was privileged to serve as a State's Attorney
in Vermont for eight years, and went before the people of Chittenden
County for election four times. They had the opportunity at every
election to let me know what they thought of the job I was doing.
By contrast, Federal prosecutors are appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate, only two Members of which represent the people
who actually reside within the jurisdiction of any particular U.S.
Attorney. Federalizing otherwise local crime not only establishes a
national standard for particular conduct but also allows enforcement by
a Federal prosecutor, who is not directly accountable to the people
against whom the law is being enforced. The Task Force warns that the
``diminution of local autonomy inherent in the imposition of national
standards, without regard to local community values and without regard
to any noticeable benefits, requires cautious legislative assessment.''
Distrust and dismay at the exercise of Federal police power fueled
the public outcry at the tragic endings of the stand-offs with Federal
law enforcement authorities at Ruby Ridge in 1992 and at Waco in 1993.
I participated in the Judiciary Committee oversight hearings into those
incidents, and was struck that both of those standoffs were sparked by
enforcement of Federal gun laws. The regulation of firearms is a
subject with extraordinary variance among the States and requires great
sensitivity and accountability to local mores.
Vermont has virtually no gun laws, and we also have one of the lowest
crime rate in the country, but our laws reflect our needs. We should be
very careful not just about federalizing a prohibition that already
exists at most State levels, but also creating a Federal criminal
prohibition where none exists at the State level, like mine.
Proposals to create new Federal crimes that run roughshod over highly
sensitive public policy choices normally decided at the local level
prompt significant concern over Federal overreaching and the exercise
of Federal police power. For example, the majority on the Judiciary
Committee reported in the last Congress a bill that would have made it
a Federal crime to travel with a minor across State lines to get an
abortion without complying with the parental consent law of the minor's
home State. This law, if enacted, would invite Federal prosecutors to
investigate and prosecute the violation of one State's parental consent
law even if neither State would subject the conduct to criminal
sanction. Establishing a national standard through creation of a new
Federal crime to deal with conduct that the States have addressed in a
different manner is a dangerous usurpation of local authority.
The death penalty is a good example. Congress has increasingly passed
Federal criminal laws carrying the death penalty, even though twelve
States, including Vermont, and the District of Columbia have declined
to adopt the death penalty. Federal prosecutors in those States are
free, with the Attorney General's approval, to buck the State's
decision and seek the death penalty in certain Federal cases which have
resulted in murder--for which every State has overlapping jurisdiction.
In Vermont, for example, we are for the first time confronting a
Federal death penalty case. These cases always present facts that could
have been prosecuted by the State, and often involve high-profile cases
that have generated press attention.
In the aftermath of a heinous murder, the public may cry out for
blood vengeance. But the considered judgment of the State against the
death penalty should not be easily bypassed, and Federal prosecutors
should not be encouraged to find some basis for the exercise of Federal
jurisdiction merely to be able to seek the death penalty.
The Task Force report concludes with a ``fundamental plea'' to
legislators and members of the public alike ``to think carefully about
the risks of excessive federalization of the criminal law and to have
these risks clearly in mind when considering any proposal to enact new
federal criminal laws and to add more resources and personnel to
federal law enforcement agencies.'' This is a plea I commend to all
Senators as we return to the business of legislating and are asked to
consider any number of crime proposals in this Congress.
Mr. President, I urge Senators to think very carefully. We should not
feel that the only way we show that we are against crime is to suddenly
federalize all crimes and basically tell our State legislatures, our
State law enforcement, our State prosecutors that they are
insignificant. Let us resist that impulse. Maybe we can pass a
resolution saying that all Senators are opposed to crime--as we are.
But let the States do what they do best.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Utah is recognized to make a motion to recess the Senate.
____________________
RECESS
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 today in order for Members
to attend a confidential briefing in room S. 407 of the Capitol, and
this briefing is in respect to the Y2K event.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:58 a.m., recessed until
2:15 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by
the Presiding Officer (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a point of
important history in our Nation; that is, to commemorate this day 163
years ago, Texas Independence Day.
Each year, I look forward to March 2nd. This is a special day for
Texans, a day that fills our hearts with pride. On this day 163 years
ago, a solemn convention of 54 men, including my great, great
grandfather Charles S. Taylor, met in the small settlement of
Washington-on-the-Brazos. There they signed the Texas Declaration of
Independence. The declaration stated:
[[Page 3320]]
We, therefore . . . do hereby resolve and declare . . .
that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign
and independent republic.
At the time, Texas was a remote territory of Mexico. It was
hospitable only to the bravest and most determined of settlers. After
declaring our independence, the founding delegates quickly wrote a
constitution and organized an interim government for the newborn
republic.
As was the case when the American Declaration of Independence was
signed in 1776, our declaration only pointed the way toward a goal. It
would exact a price of enormous effort and great sacrifice. For
instance, when my great, great grandfather was there, signing the
declaration of independence, and then, as most of the delegates did,
went on eventually to fight the Battle of San Jacinto, he didn't know
it at the time, but all four of his children who had been left back at
home in Nacogdoches died trying to escape from the Indians and the
Mexicans who they feared were coming after them. Fortunately, he and
his wife, my great, great grandmother, had nine more children. But it
is just an example of the sacrifices that were made by people who were
willing to fight for something they believed in. That, of course, was
freedom--freedom, in that instance, of Texas at that time. But that is
something, of course, all Americans cherish greatly.
While the convention sat in Washington-on-the-Brazos, 6,000 Mexican
troops were marching on the Alamo to challenge this newly created
republic. Several days earlier, from the Alamo, Col. William Barrett
Travis sent his immortal letter to the people of Texas and to all
Americans. He knew the Mexican Army was approaching and he knew that he
had only a very few men to help defend the San Antonio fortress.
Colonel Travis wrote:
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots: I am besieged with a
thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have
sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours
and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at
discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the
sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with
a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly over the
wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then I call on you
in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to
the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch.
The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt
increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If
this call is neglected I am determined to sustain myself as
long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets
what is due his honor and that of his country--VICTORY OR
DEATH.
William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Commander.
What American, Texan or otherwise, can fail to be stirred by Col.
Travis' resolve?
In fact, Colonel Travis' dire prediction came true--4,000 to 5,000
Mexican troops laid siege to the Alamo. In the battle that followed,
184 brave men died in a heroic but vain attempt to fend off Santa
Anna's overwhelming army. But the Alamo, as we all in Texas know, was
crucial to Texas' independence. Because those heroes at the Alamo held
out for so long, Santa Anna's forces were battered and diminished.
Gen. Sam Houston gained the time he needed to devise a strategy to
defeat Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, just a month or so
later, on April 21, 1836. The Lone Star was visible on the horizon at
last.
Each year, on March 2, there is a ceremony at Washington-on-the-
Brazos State Park where there is a replica of the modest cabin where
the 54 patriots laid down their lives and treasure for freedom. Each
day on this day, I read Colonel Travis' letter to my colleagues in the
Senate, a tradition started by my friend, Senator John Tower. This is a
reminder to them and to all of us of the pride Texans share in our
history and in being the only State that came into the Union as a
republic.
Mr. President, I am pleased to continue the tradition that was
started by Senator Tower, because we do have a unique heritage in Texas
where we fought for our freedom. Having grown up in the family and
hearing the stories of my great great grandfather, it was something
that was ingrained in us--fighting for your freedom was something you
did.
I think it is very important that we remember the people who
sacrificed, the 184 men who died at the Alamo, the men who died at
Goliad, who made it possible for us to win the Battle of San Jacinto
and become a nation, which we were for 10 years before we entered the
Union as a State.
I might add, we entered the Union by a margin of one vote, both in
the House and in the Senate. In fact, we originally were going to come
into the Union through a treaty, but the two-thirds vote could not be
received and, therefore, President Tyler said, ``No, then we will pass
a law to invite Texas to become a part of our Union,'' and the law
passed by one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate. Now we fly
both flags proudly--the American flag and the Texas flag--over our
capitol in Austin, TX.
I am very pleased to, once again, commemorate our great heritage and
history. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
INCREASING FUNDING OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000
TECHNOLOGY-RELATED PROBLEMS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15
having arrived, the Committee on Rules and Administration is discharged
from further consideration of S. Res. 7, and the Senate will proceed
immediately to its consideration.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 7) to amend Senate Resolution 208 of
the 105th Congress to increase funding of the Special
Committee on the Year 2000 Technology-Related Problems.
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time for debate
on the resolution shall be limited to 3 hours, equally divided between
the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, and the Senator from Connecticut,
Mr. Dodd.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the
duration of this debate, the following members of the staff detailed to
the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problems be granted
the privilege of the floor: Frank Reilly, John Stephenson, Paul Hunter,
J. Paul Nicholas, Ron Spear and Tom Bello.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the consent
agreement with respect to the consideration of S. Res. 7 be modified to
allow one technical amendment to the resolution, to be offered by
myself and Senator Dodd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 30
(Purpose: To make a conforming change)
Mr. BENNETT. The technical amendment is now at the desk, and I ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself and Mr.
Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 30.
The text of the amendment follows:
On page 1, line 5, strike ``both places'' and insert ``the
second place''.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 30) was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
As I have said somewhat facetiously, today is ``Y2K Day in the
neighborhood.'' We have had a series of events with respect to Y2K
legislation, starting with the debate this morning on the Small
Business Administration bill offered by Senator Bond of Missouri. We
then went into a closed session where it was my privilege, along with
Senator Dodd, to make a presentation to Members of the Senate with
respect
[[Page 3321]]
to the impact of Y2K on our national defense and our intelligence
capabilities. And now this afternoon, we have 3 hours to discuss the
funding request for the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology
Problems and, in that process, take the opportunity of the debate to
lay out for the Senate and for the television public exactly what we
are dealing with.
To summarize ``Y2K in the neighborhood,'' I have a single chart that
we used in the press conference earlier that outlines what it is we are
talking about.
Specifically, as you see, Mr. President, it says, ``Y2K--What is
it?'' There are some who think it is a rock band and we will make that
clear. And then, Why are we vulnerable? Where are the greatest risks?
What is being done? What should we be doing next? And what can we
expect? It is in the framework of those questions that I will be making
my presentation today.
In the closed session, we talked about national defense issues,
international assessments country by country and the preparedness of
the U.S. intelligence community. I report to the Senate as a whole, for
those Senators who were not able to be there, that we announced these
conclusions to the Senators who were there and, I might say, Mr.
President, we were very gratified by the number of Senators who did
appear. The room was full, and the Senators were very attentive, which
I think is appropriate given the significance of this issue.
We believe that there is a low-to-medium probability of exploitation
of Y2K by any terrorist groups. People in the press conference asked
me, ``Well, can you be specific?'' And the answer is no. We know of no
intention on the part of terrorist groups to exploit Y2K uncertainty,
but these groups are there, they are up to mischief, and so we say
there is a probability, but it is at the low end of things.
There is a low probability of a nuclear launch coming by accident as
a result of Y2K. Again, we cannot rule it out absolutely, but we think
the probability of it is very low.
There is a medium probability of economic disruptions that could lead
to civil unrest in various parts of the world, and we will discuss that
here in the open session as we outline for you how vulnerable some
parts of the world may be to Y2K interruptions.
There is a high probability of an economic impact with consequences
unknown. Here we can only guess, but I think there is a high
probability that Y2K will, in fact, produce some kind of economic
dislocation that we will feel.
As far as U.S. preparedness is concerned, the U.S. Armed Forces will
not lose their mission-critical capability, their war-fighting
capacity. The United States will remain the world's superpower, and the
U.S. intelligence community will not lose its capability to carry out
its duties.
To go to, first, the question--What is Y2K?--in case there is anyone
who really doesn't understand what we are talking about here, it goes
to the inability of a computer to recognize the difference between 1900
and 2000 as a date if that computer is programmed for only two digits
for the date field for years. This goes back to the 1960s, maybe even
the 1950s when memory space was very, very expensive, very, very
crucial and, in order to save space, programmers said, ``Well, we can
just drop the ``19'' off the year and go to ``69'' for 1969, ``70'' for
1970, and so on. And when someone said, ``Well, what happens when you
get to the year 2000 and you get two zeros and the computer will think
it is 1900?'' The answer on the part of those programmers was, ``This
program will be obsolete and abandoned long before we get to the year
2000.''
They didn't realize the ingenuity of programmers. They figured out a
way to preserve those ancient programs and to lay other layers of
programming on top of them in such a fashion that the old programs look
like the new ones, but deep down in the bowels of all of that
programming, you have programs that are scheduled to fail when they get
to the crucial time when they go over from 99 to 00.
There are many other manifestations of it, going down to embedded
chips, computers no bigger than my little fingernail that nonetheless
have in them the capacity to fail over this issue. But basically that
is the issue. That is what Y2K is. The failure of computers, when they
have to transition from 1999 to 2000, those computers that are
programmed with two digits for the annual date may fail--some of them
certainly will fail--and that is what Y2K is all about.
By the way, people ask, What does ``Y2K'' stand for? ``Y'' stands for
year, ``2'' stands for 2--that is fairly easy to follow--and ``K,''
from the Greek, standing for kilo, meaning 1,000. It is computer speech
for the year 2000. My wife says to me, ``Why do you use that acronym?
You just confuse people. Why don't you say `year 2000' instead of
`Y2K.' '' And I say, ``Well, it's quicker.'' She says, `` `Y2K,' `year
2000,' you only save one syllable. What is the point? You just do it to
confuse people.'' But I guess I have been in Government long enough now
that confusing people is part of the program.
So what is Y2K? I think that is the answer to the question.
Why are we vulnerable? We are vulnerable because at virtually every
point of importance in the modern economy and modern activity there
stands the computer--whether it is on a chip or in a huge mainframe--
with the capacity to fail.
Let's take an event that we hope never happens to any of us, but that
is a demonstration of a true emergency--a fire in a building--and see
what happens. Here is a picture of a burning building.
In order to muster the firefighting capability to deal with this
emergency, you have a number of people and a number of systems that are
involved. There is the computer-aided dispatching system to send the
firefighter to where the challenge is. There is the telecommunications
system where the telephone calls go back and forth to send the message
from the dispatching system; the building security and fire detection
systems that make the phone call back to the dispatching system.
The firefighters jump in their cars or their trucks. The trucks have
to be filled with fuel. And the pumps that control the fuel supply that
goes into the firetrucks all have computers in them--embedded chips.
The traffic control system that controls the ability of the fire engine
to get through town all has computers in it. The water supply, when
they get to the hydrant, is regulated by computers. And, of course, the
personnel management systems that get the firefighters into the fire
station in the first place now are all managed by computers.
A single event we take for granted, all of the things that are done
to bring to bear on this event--some firefighting capability, but there
are computers at virtually every step of the way.
Now, just another example of how interconnected we are in this world.
Let's take a single transaction that takes place this time across
international lines. This will be, perhaps, a little hard to follow
because the chart is relatively smaller and less dramatic than a
burning building, but just let me walk you through this as to what
happens when there is a commercial transaction that goes across
national lines.
An import-export kind of transaction. Every red arrow that you see
there on the chart, Mr. President, is a transmission of information by
computer. Every single time something takes place with the purchase and
delivery of an item across national lines --you start the contracts,
the negotiations by the Internet, a checking of credit, the contract by
the Internet--all the way through. The white arrows on the chart are
where something physically moves, when you are moving a piece of
merchandise out of a factory onto a ship or out of the truck into a
retail store or whatever.
Without going through all of the steps, I just point out that there
are more red arrows than there are white ones. There are more
opportunities for computer failure to ruin the ability of this
transaction to go forward than there are physical opportunities for it
to fail. We are so heavily interconnected in this world now that we
[[Page 3322]]
are completely vulnerable to a computer failure. And at every red arrow
on that chart right now there is a computer with a potential Y2K
problem.
Someone once said to me, This problem is really very simple. You just
get into the computer and find out where the date is and fix it; change
it from two digits to four digits. And I say, yes, that is very simple,
very simple problem, very simply solved. The only problem is, you do
not know where that date field is, particularly in those old programs
that I talked about.
It has been likened to this kind of a challenge: Suppose someone said
to you, Mr. President, the Golden Gate Bridge has some bad rivets in
it, and if you do not replace those faulty rivets, the Golden Gate
Bridge will fall down. All you have to do is very simple: Knock out the
bad rivet, put in a good rivet, and the bridge is made secure.
Now, one out of seven of those rivets in the Golden Gate Bridge is
bad, and we cannot tell you which ones they are. You have to go through
the Golden Gate Bridge and check every rivet to see which seventh rivet
has to be fixed. And by the way, if you do not get every single one,
the bridge will collapse, and you do this remediation work at rush hour
while the bridge is being used. That is roughly comparable to the
challenge that we face here. And that is why we are vulnerable. OK.
The next question is, Where are the greatest risks? Well, we can
answer that two ways. On our committee, we have decided to rate the
greatest risks in terms of which sectors of the economy have the
greatest importance to us. And when you rank risk by importance, No. 1
immediately leaps to the top of the list; and that is power.
If the power goes off, it does not matter if your computer works
otherwise. The only computers that will work in the world, if the power
goes off, will be those that have batteries, and that is about 2 or 3
hours, and they are all gone. So we have put our first focus on power.
Second, telecommunications. If the telephone goes off, the power grid
fails, because many of the signals that keep the power grid functioning
go over telephone lines. So once again, everything stops.
Third, transportation. If transportation fails, you cannot get coal,
for example, from coal mines into power-generating plants. If the
switches on all of the railroad lines fail--and they are controlled by
computers--there is no coal in the powerplants. The power grid fails,
everything fails.
You begin to see, again, how interconnected everything is.
Fourth, finance. If the banks cannot clear checks, if there can be no
transfer of funds, if the financial system collapses, then business
collapses. Once again, the chain starts, and you end up ultimately with
no power, all the rest of it.
Then, general government. We are so dependent on government services
to keep the economy running that if the general government services
were to fail--in the Federal Government, for example, if the Health
Care Financing Administration were to fail and be unable to make any
Medicare reimbursements, it would ultimately destroy the health care
industry, because 40 percent of the health care reimbursements are
Medicare reimbursements. And you simply could not keep a health care
facility going if you cut their cash by 40 percent and left it that way
for a while.
Finally, general business.
Those are the ranks of importance that we have looked at in our
committee.
Let me take this opportunity to make this statement about what we
found. The committee has been operating for roughly a year now, and in
that process people who have looked at the list I have just recited
have gotten very excited. Indeed, they have begun to create a cottage
industry of panic.
You can get on the Internet and you can look up any kind of web site,
and they will take the possibility of computer failure in any of the
areas I have just outlined and translate that into what has come to be
known in the world of Y2K hyperbole as TEOTWAWKI. Now, TEOTWAWKI is the
acronym that stands for ``The End Of The World As We Know It.'' They
use that phrase so often, they created an acronym. Now you can get on
the Internet and they will talk about TEOTWAWKI.
Mr. President, I am here to announce that TEOTWAWKI is not going to
come to pass. We are satisfied, as a result of the hearings we held,
and the interviews we held, and the investigations we have undertaken
on the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem,
that the world is not, in fact, going to come to an end over this
problem--certainly not in the United States. We will have problems.
There is no question, given the ubiquitous nature of the problem, that
it will cause interruptions and difficulties in the United States, but
it will not bring everything to a halt. It will not cause the shutdown
of vital services. In our opinion, it will be a bump in the road for
the United States.
Now, people say: What does that mean? How serious a bump and how long
will it last, Senator Bennett? I don't know, and I don't know anybody
who does, because this is a moving target, there are so many potentials
for challenge, that we cannot quantify it with the kind of accuracy
that the press always searches for when they ask you these questions.
It will have an impact. It will be felt. But how long it will last and
how deep it will go I don't know. That is why the committee is going to
continue, so that we can continue to study it, and as we get closer to
it, we will be in a better position to make that kind of assessment.
Now, if we ask the question, Where are the greatest risks? --not in
the pattern of the impact on the economy that I have talked about, but
on our current state of readiness--we find that the greatest impact,
based on what we now know in the committee, is probably going to be in
the health care field. This is the field that we think is the least
prepared to deal with the year 2000 problem in the United States.
One of the reasons for that is it is so fragmented. There are so many
hospitals. There are so many separate doctors' offices. Some of them
have done nothing to prepare for the year 2000. Frankly, some of them
can solve their problem in an afternoon. Some of them that are
operating off of a single PC can get a patch downloaded from the
Internet that can solve their problem. Some of them are going to
require substantially more than that. And some of them, frankly, are
far enough behind the curve, if they are not on top of it by now, it is
too late and they ought to start thinking about contingency plans. We
simply do not know. What we do know causes us to believe that health
care is vulnerable.
Senator Dodd, I am sure, will be addressing this in greater detail
because he is the one who has focused on this to a greater extent than
any other member of the committee.
Another area of readiness that we are concerned about is local
government. I gave this Y2K speech at a Rotary Club meeting in a small
town in Utah and people asked me, ``What should we do to get ready for
Y2K?'' I gave them the same answer I always give them, which is, you
should take charge of your own life; you should check with your own
bank to make sure they are going to be Y2K compliant; you should check
with your own employer to be sure he or she is getting things under
control; and, among other things, I said, call your mayor to make sure
your water system is going to be all right in your local community.
I have done that in Salt Lake City. I have had some long discussions
with the mayor of Salt Lake, and she assures me it will be safe for me
to be in Salt Lake on New Year's Eve because the water system will
work.
After I gave the speech, a man came up, shook my hand, and said,
``You have caused me some problems.'' I asked why, and he said, ``I am
the mayor.'' I said, ``Mr. Mayor, is your water system going to be all
right?'' He said, ``I don't have the slightest idea but I am sure going
to find out.'' He said, ``It never occurred to me that we had computer
problems in our water purification plant.''
We have held hearings on this issue. I have been in a water
purification plant. While I think most local governments are
responsible enough and will
[[Page 3323]]
be on top of it, I am concerned that there will be local governments
where there will be critical emergency response systems that will
fail--fire departments, ambulances, and so on, water systems, federally
funded services. Many of the federally funded services are administered
at the local level. Welfare checks are mailed out by county
governments, not by the Federal Government, in many instances. And in
these communities, there can be serious disruption even while the
Nation as a whole is doing fine.
In the economy as a whole, the area that is at the greatest risk is
where we find medium-sized businesses. The big businesses are probably
just fine. Citigroup announced when we first got into this they were
going to spend $500 million fixing their year 2000 problem. That went
up to $650 million by the time we got around to drafting the report.
Now, the day the report is issued, we are told they are spending closer
to $800 million to get this solved. But Citigroup will get it solved.
They have the money and the muscle and the will to get it taken care
of.
The very small businesses will probably get it solved because, again,
for them, they are dealing with a single computer that runs their
payroll and maybe does their taxes, and they do everything else by
hand. They can solve that problem in a short-term period of time. The
middle-sized businesses that don't have the money of a Citigroup and
that have a much bigger problem than a mom-and-pop store are running
into difficulty. The surveys we are conducting tell us that these
companies are where the problems are going to be.
Now you may say, so what? We should really care if an individual
business here or an individual business there should fail or should
have serious problems. In today's economy, we live in a world of
outsourcing and just-in-time inventory. That means that General Motors
has literally tens of thousands of suppliers. General Motors does not
make everything themselves; they outsource. That is a fancy name for
buying it from somebody else. They are dependent on these medium-sized
businesses for their parts. One of the scary things is that many of
these medium-sized businesses on which General Motors and other big
manufacturers are dependent are overseas.
I used to run a very small business, so small that it wouldn't really
attract anybody's attention, but the key component of our business,
without which we had no product, was manufactured in Taiwan, and if we
were unable to get that from Taiwan because of Y2K problems in Taiwan,
we were out of business. We sold our product to a much bigger company.
They were dependent upon us. They could have all of their computers Y2K
compliant and be unable to get product from us and therefore have to
drop a major product line for them. We couldn't supply it because we
couldn't get this product from Taiwan. You see the chain of suppliers
that runs throughout the economy in this just-in-time inventory world.
When I say I am concerned about medium-sized firms as an area of high
risk, it could affect big firms and could affect the economy as a
whole.
Now, the next question after where is the greatest risk: What are we
doing about it? What is being done? Here, I think, it is time for the
Senate and the Congress, if I might, to be a little bit self-
congratulatory. When this problem first came to the attention of the
Congress, Senator Burns of Montana has said he held hearings on this
issue, or had been involved in hearings on this issue back in the early
1990s. He said we couldn't get anybody interested; nobody paid any
attention. He was on the Commerce Committee. He said the thing just
kind of dropped without a trace.
We first became aware of this on the Senate Banking Committee in
1996. That is where Senator Dodd and I became zealots on this issue,
and we began to work on this with respect to the financial services
area. The more we got into that, the more we realized that it
encompassed all of the things that I have described here this
afternoon.
One example demonstrates what I am talking about when I say that
Congress can be a little bit self-congratulatory about the question of
what is being done. My son-in-law works for one of the major banks in
this country. He said at a family gathering, ``You know, I don't know
what's happened, but the bank examiners from the Federal Reserve who
come into our bank now have only one thing on their minds, and that is
Y2K, and they have made it the top priority in the bank.'' I thought,
you know, we have finally done something in Congress that has produced
a result because, at Senator Dodd's suggestion, we got the bank
regulators before our subcommittee of the Banking Committee and we
raised this issue with them; we discovered several things. No. 1, they
were not raising it as part of the safety and soundness examination
they were doing in banks. No. 2, their own computers weren't going to
work in the year 2000. They would not be able to conduct their
regulatory activities if we didn't get it fixed. The mere act of
holding a hearing and bringing these people forward produced a salutary
result that actually got out into the economy and changed the way
things are being done.
Well, now, I think we can take some credit for having raised that
alarm. Senator Moynihan wrote to the President and urged him to appoint
a Y2K czar or coordinator. The President did not respond. I wrote to
the President after we had our hearings in the Banking Committee and
recommended it. He did not respond to me, either. But in February of
1998, he did, in fact, appoint a Y2K coordinator. I think the track
record says it is the Congress that possibly spurred that. And we now
have a President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, headed by John
Koskinen, working very diligently to make sure the Federal Government
and the economy as a whole is ready for this. We are doing everything
we can to create awareness of the challenge. At the same time, we want
to be sure, in words that we have used before, that while we are ``Paul
Revere,'' we are not ``Chicken Little.'' We have to get everybody
aroused to the fact that the British really are coming. They have to
get out of their warm beds and pick up their muskets and get ready for
this; but the sky is not falling and it will not be TEOTWAWKI; it will
not be the end of the world as we know it.
Well, I see that the vice chairman of our committee, Senator Dodd,
has come on to the floor. Soon I will reserve the remainder of my time
and give him an opportunity for a statement about this.
Other members of the committee have expressed an interest to come to
the floor and talk about this issue. I want to acknowledge the
tremendous support we have had on this committee. This is a unique kind
of committee in that we have had tremendous bipartisan support. My
staff and Senator Dodd's staff function almost as one on this
committee. We have made every effort to keep any kind of partisanship
out of it. We go out on field visits together. Senator Dodd has been
indefatigable in his effort to keep this thing going, and he prods me
in areas where I need it and keeps the committee focused in areas where
sometimes I stray in other places. It has been one of the most
satisfying legislative experiences that I have ever had.
Other members of the committee, the same way. Senator Moynihan was
into this issue before we even discovered it and came onto the
committee with great enthusiasm. Senator Smith of Oregon, who came to
the Senate as a businessman, took charge of dealing with business and
Y2K's impact on business and has been tremendously helpful. We have had
Senator Bingaman, who we have asked to focus on the national defense
issues. Senator Collins, as a representative of the Governmental
Affairs Committee, has held hearings in that committee based on what
she has come up with out of our committee. Senator Kyl did all of the
heavy lifting on the committee for last year's bill on disclosure and
has been enormously valuable.
And then we have, unlike any other committee in the Senate, two ex
officio members, Ted Stevens of Alaska and Robert C. Byrd of West
Virginia; and the fact that the Federal Government
[[Page 3324]]
received literally billions of dollars in emergency funds in the last
supplemental, which, I think, have dealt with the true emergency. I
think we are responsible for our being where we are in many of the
government agencies. I don't think that would have happened if the
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee were
not involved directly and particularly in the work of this particular
special committee.
So, with that tribute to my fellow Senators on this committee and the
work that has been done, I will reserve the remainder of my time, Mr.
President, to allow the vice chairman of the committee and the ranking
Democrat, Senator Dodd, to make his statement.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Without breaking into the colloquy, I wonder if I can
have 5 seconds to introduce a bill.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Alaska be recognized for the purpose of introducing a bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S.
501 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, let me begin these remarks by seconding everything
that my colleague from Utah has said about the other members of this
committee. I will add, as I know he has expressed on numerous
occasions, the tremendous work done by our respective staffs. They have
done a tremendous amount of work in providing us with the kind of
detailed information that we have been able to produce at this juncture
in our interim report, which we released today.
Let me also, on behalf of other members of the committee, say to you
and to our colleagues here that we have been truly fortunate to have
Bob Bennett lead this effort. I have said this on numerous occasions.
He has literally been the leader on this in the Senate. He began early
on and insisted that the Banking Committee have a subcommittee that
would look at the implications of this year 2000 ``bug,'' as it is
affectionately referred to, on financial institutions. It was as a
result of his efforts that my curiosity was piqued.
As a member of that committee--not as the ranking Democrat, but as a
member of that committee--I attended a number of hearings we had on
financial services, and I quickly learned through that process that
this issue went far beyond the individual institutions that had to do
their own assessments. What Senator Bennett discovered very early on
and what others of us who sat in on those committee hearings soon
learned, was that it wasn't enough to be a financial service and have
your own house in shape when it came to the Y2K issue, and that the
bank, or the savings and loan, or the stock brokerage, or any other
financial service, insurance agent, or company--if they were in good
shape internally, that wasn't enough. They had to also determine
whether or not suppliers and customers, all sorts of contractors with
whom they do business, would also have to be in good shape.
That obviously drew us to the conclusion that this was an issue that
deserved broader attention than just looking at the financial services
sector. As a result, Senator Bennett and I went to our respective
leaders and asked and urged them to support this special committee that
has no legislative authority. We have no authority to pass any laws or
do anything, but merely try to make an assessment as we now approach
the millennium date 304 days from today.
As a result of those efforts, beginning last year, Trent Lott, our
majority leader, and Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate,
supported our efforts to form this committee. We owe them a great debt
of gratitude, as well, as leaders for giving us the kind of support
that has been necessary to do our jobs.
Today, at the conclusion of this discussion, there will be a vote on
a matter that would provide an additional $300,000 over the next year
for us to complete our work as we now enter this second phase of this
assessment of how the Nation and the world is responding to this issue.
So we hope that our colleagues will be supportive of that effort to
allow us to complete our work.
Again, at the outset, I want to thank my friend and colleague from
Utah whose own background in business--and a successful business, I
might add--has brought some wonderful awareness and knowledge to all of
this. It has been truly enjoyable to work with him and his staff over
these past number of months which has brought us to the place we are
today.
The Senate special committee, which formed in April, as I have said,
has been working hard to assess a variety of industry sectors. Some
sectors have been very cooperative. We should tell you that in this
kind of effort so much information and so much news is focused on what
is wrong. We need to take some time to tell you about what is right,
too.
There is a lot that is going on that is right when it comes to this
issue. It doesn't get the same attention. The old axiom that the media
doesn't report about planes that fly is certainly true in the Y2K
issue. The headlines are going to tell you about where the problems
are. That is the nature of the news media and what gets covered. But
there are a lot of planes that are flying, if you will, both literally
and figuratively when it comes to the year 2000 issue. Those that have
been doing the work getting the job done deserve to be recognized as
well. Others have needed more persuasion, unfortunately. We will get to
that.
After 10 months of research, we have now completed our report, which
I have referred to already, which gives you the status on seven major
sectors. It is not an all-conclusive list. But we came up with this
list. Senator Bennett did. He came up with a list of seven critical
areas that we thought most people would have questions about and
legitimate concerns. I will get to that in a second. I know Senator
Bennett has already discussed that to some degree.
The report was intended to provide as comprehensive as we could an
analysis, and described as thoroughly as we could in a single document
how ready we are to face this millennium issue that is going to be upon
us in 304 days; in some cases before.
Reflecting on what we have learned from our research and hearings, I
think it would be an understatement to say that Y2K is an important
issue. Expert opinions on the subject have ranged from denial to the
coming of Armageddon.
While we don't foresee any major disruptions, anyone who hasn't begun
to consider the ramifications of this problem should do so immediately,
in our opinion. Some businesses within different industries have been
extremely forward thinking in their year 2000 preparation efforts.
George Washington Memorial Hospital, right in our own Nation's Capital
in the city of Washington, began its remediation efforts a half a
decade ago in order to be ready for the year 2000 issue. State Street,
an international financial service in Boston, MA, began fixing its year
2000 problem 6 years ago and is projected to spend some $200 million on
remediation efforts. The cost has been significant. For some it will
continue to rise as companies continue to discover problems and work
through them.
Consider for a moment, if you would, Mr. President, the cost of not
being ready, especially with regard to exposure to litigation.
Projected litigation costs have ranged from $500 billion to $1
trillion. You can be sure that these costs in one way or another will
be passed on to consumers in other groups.
Let me just mention the litigation issue. As my colleague from Utah
knows, and others know, I have been a strong advocate of litigation
reform. Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator
[[Page 3325]]
Domenici, myself, and others authored the securities litigation reform
bill, and then last year we passed the uniform standards legislation to
reduce the proliferation of computer-driven complaints where mere stock
fluctuations would generate lawsuits. I think it was a good effort and
was endorsed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
overwhelmingly supported by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
I am a supporter of litigation reform in this area, too. I think it is
going to be very important that we do something in this area to reduce
the potential costs of unwarranted litigation.
Having said that, however, Mr. President, I also want to say that
there should be no mistake out there that this committee and this
Congress are not about to create some firewall that protects businesses
or industries when they should have known better and done better and
didn't do so. If you are sitting back and saying, I hear Congress is
about to pass some legislation that is going to insulate me and protect
me from consumers and businesses and others that would have a
legitimate complaint against a company that did not do its Y2K work,
you would be mistaken. I think I am speaking for most of us here who
feel that way. That is not to say we will not be able to pass a bill. I
hope we can. But we shouldn't leave the impression that this is going
to be somehow an abolition of tort law in this country.
There is a reason why we call these problems bugs or viruses. Like a
disease, this issue can corrupt the functioning of vital systems, can
cause damage, shutdown, and can bring the flow of work to a halt. They
can take a business out of business very quickly. They can stop the
flow of information and communication.
As concerned as I am, let me make the point that we believe the
United States is one of the most prepared nations in the world. We have
the resources we need both in terms of economics and expertise.
However, most countries lag behind the United States in the year 2000
preparation.
I cannot stress to you enough, Mr. President, the serious nature of
this topic. This is not an imaginary problem just because we can't at
this time quantify as exactly as we would like, or forecast as exactly
as we would like, the extent of this problem. We don't know for sure
what is going to happen, and where it is going to happen. So we must
prepare, in our view, for a bad situation. We hope it doesn't occur.
There is no information we have that it is likely to occur. But we
don't know. We just don't know with the kind of certainty we would like
to share with our colleagues and share with the Nation.
Some chief executive officers and government leaders assume because
this is a technical problem and they lack technical expertise that
their hands are somehow tied. This is not the case. There is no
singlehanded resolution to this crisis. A successful resolution will
call for cooperation across the board. This is not just a technology
problem. It will require managers who are willing to get involved at
all levels. It will take leaders in business, in the U.S. Congress, and
at the executive branch level to take the initiative and find out where
companies and organizations, nonprofits and for-profits, are in their
Y2K remediation and contingency planning.
Large, medium and small businesses must cooperate to find solutions.
Chief executive officers must be aware of the extent of their
companies' Y2K exposure. Companies must develop contingency plans. In
fact, this is a critical issue right now. It doesn't mean you ought to
stop remediation, but if you are concerned that you are not going to be
able to get ready in 304 days, you ought to be actively involved in
looking at contingency planning.
If there were no other message I could leave our colleagues with, or
others who may be following this discussion today, the most important
point I would like to make is the need for contingency planning. I
can't think of anything more important. You ought to know how important
contingency planning will be.
They also must insist that vital suppliers and vendors resolve their
own problems and have their own contingency plans in place. The true
heroes on January 1, 2000, will be those organizations, private and
public companies--small, medium and large--that have found a way to
adapt to this potential problem. A business owner who wants to prosper
in the new millennium must prepare for the Y2K problem in such a way
that the business--that their business, his or her business--does not
skip a beat come New Year's Day.
As of today, as I have said repeatedly now today, we have 304 days
remaining, but much can still be done in that time, as short as it is.
If you have lived in the Southeast of our country where there are
hurricanes on almost an annual basis, or the Midwest and South where
tornadoes are common, you may have heard warnings that gave you little
time to make survival decisions. The year 2000 is a storm on the not-
too-distant future horizon. It is a disaster, in some cases pervasive
throughout the First World and beyond, but is one for which we can
prepare.
It is one that we can work to neutralize. We on this committee have
been assessing all that we can to understand more about this coming
storm, and we have learned a great deal. Small businesses do not have
any compliance plans in place.
Preparation for the continued health of our Nation's businesses and
industries is vital, but paramount is the health of our health care. It
is not an exaggeration to say that lives could be lost as a result of
this crisis. I point to disturbing examples of what could happen
relative to health care and the Y2K issue not to be an alarmist, quite
the contrary, but to shed light on something that needs the attention
of everyone in this country. Sixty million people are dependent on
medication for the treatment of health problems from cancer to heart
disease. Some require daily doses of life-sustaining medicines to keep
their bodies from rejecting transplanted organs or to prevent cancers
from spreading.
Let me just cite one example of what I am talking about of which this
committee has become keenly aware. Laurene West is a registered nurse
and a computer expert. She brings together some wonderful talents. And
if you were to meet her, you would see a seemingly healthy woman. Were
it not for the fact that I tell you now, you would never guess that her
state of health will put her more at risk than any of us when the year
2000 arrives. Ms. West had a tumor removed from her brain and requires
daily medication to prevent the regrowth of that tumor.
During her first of 13 surgeries, she developed a staph infection
that does not respond to any known oral antibiotic. She is dependent on
IV antibiotics which she cannot store because they have no shelf life.
Any disruption to the supply of these antibiotics could be fatal to
her. She knows health care. She knows computers. And she knows all too
well the impact that the year 2000 could have on her health care.
Ms. West has been the most proactive voice calling upon us to take
action. She worries that HMOs and physicians, to a certain extent, view
the impending crisis with a degree of disbelief and apathy. Many health
insurance organizations will not pay for the storage of even the most
critical of drugs. We now are aware that as much as 80 percent--80
percent--of the ingredients of drugs manufactured in the United States
of America come from overseas.
Let me repeat that. As much as 80 percent of the ingredients of drugs
manufactured in this country come from overseas. Foreign companies
account for 70 percent of the insulin market in the United States.
Unfortunately, patients have been prevented from stocking lifesaving
drugs because of restrictions placed on pharmacists by insurers and
physicians who may not fully understand the magnitude of this problem.
Ms. West has brought this to our attention. We applaud her efforts, and
we are going to try to do something about her case and cases like it.
Health care is this Nation's single largest industry. It generates
$1.5 trillion annually. There are 6,000 hospitals in America, 800,000
physicians, and
[[Page 3326]]
50,000 nursing homes, as well as hundreds of biomedical equipment
manufacturers, health care insurers, suppliers of drugs and bandages
that may be unprepared for the year 2000. According to the Gartner
Group, 64 percent of our Nation's 6,000 hospitals have no plans to test
their Y2K preparedness. About 80 to 85 percent of doctors' offices are
said to be unaware of the Y2K problem.
Struggling compliance efforts by the Health Care Finance
Administration and unaddressed concerns about medical devices are major
roadblocks to the industry's year 2000 readiness. In short, the health
care industry is one of the least prepared with 304 days to go for
dealing with the Y2K problem and carries, in my opinion, the greatest
potential for harm at this juncture. Due to limited resources and a
lack of awareness, rural and inner-city hospitals are particularly at
high risk.
Each industry we have examined is critical to the functioning of our
society. We have all heard the analogies about making a phone call on
December 31 around midnight and getting the bill the next month with a
charge for 100 years of long-distance calls. But what if the phone
doesn't work at all; what if you lose contact with your work, your
family doctor, your 911 dispatcher. Think what would happen if the
ability to communicate was taken from governments, militaries,
businesses and people.
The U.S. has never experienced a widespread telecommunications
outage, yet the telecom network is one of the most Y2K-vulnerable
systems. And while 95 percent of telephone systems are expected to be
compliant in time, there is no industry-wide effort to test data
networks, cellular and satellite communications systems or the Nation's
1,400 regional telecom carriers. Despite telecom infrastructure
readiness, customer equipment and company switchboards may experience
some problems, leaving no guarantee of getting a dial tone on January
1.
A forum that included the Nation's largest telecom companies was
formed in 1997 to address the year 2000 concerns and was early, to
their credit, in formulating a compliance plan. We are awaiting a final
industry report which is expected early this year.
With all of our assessment, research and hearings, we have learned a
great deal about many sectors of our infrastructure. We have learned
who is compliant and who is making headway, who is lagging behind, and
who has failed to disclose their status. We discuss and recommend
legislation to move the process forward, and we must look hard into the
mirror. The Federal Government should be setting an example, in our
view, for the rest of our country in preparing for the Y2K issue, yet
the Federal Government's Y2K preparations vary widely.
The Social Security Administration, for instance, got an early start
and is well prepared--we commend them for their efforts--while other
agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Health Care Finance
Administration are lagging somewhat behind. The Federal Government will
spend somewhere, we are told, between $7.5 billion--and I apologize for
the disparity --and $20 billion. I would like to make that number more
definitive for you, but we are getting wide-ranging cost figures here.
Those are the numbers we are being told just for the remediation at the
Federal agencies, but it will not be able to renovate, test, and
implement all of its critical missions in time. After a late start, the
Federal Emergency Management Administration is now engaged in national
emergency planning in the event of year 2000 disruptions, but many
State and local governments are not prepared to deliver critical
services such as benefit payments, 911, and emergency services.
Both Senator Bennett and I have had a particular interest in small
businesses. This is because small businesses fulfill such a crucial
role in our Nation's economy, providing 51 percent of the total private
sector output. Small businesses are absolutely vital to the economic
well-being of our Nation. There are approximately 14 million small
businesses in the United States today and, according to the NFIB
Education Foundation, nearly a quarter of these 14 million businesses
haven't spent a dime on year 2000 remediation. Fifty-five percent of
them correspond with suppliers via electronic interaction and 17
percent say that they would lose at least half their sales or
production if automated processes were to fail. Many of these companies
are playing wait and see--in reality, gambling that the problems are
small, or at least they will be able to repair the damage before they
go out of business.
In our February 5 hearing, we heard testimony from Mr. Ken Evans,
president of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation. Part of the
responsibility of his organization is to look out for a type of small
business that is literally the bread and butter of our country--the
family farm. Some reports have indicated that these small businesses
may not be affected by the year 2000 problem since few of the systems
used by family farms are automated. However, as Mr. Evans pointed out
before our committee hearing, smaller farms rely heavily on vendors,
telecommunications services, bankers, and transportation companies that
are all highly automated.
I know the Presiding Officer in the Chair comes from one of our rural
States and knows better than most about just what I have said here,
that people have sort of a mythological perception about the family
farm and how it works. But today to succeed as a family farmer you have
to be connected with these other vehicles to provide the services you
need and to get your products and produce to the consumers.
The smooth functioning, as Mr. Evans pointed out, of day-to-day
business on the small farm requires that phones work, the refrigeration
is in service, and the transportation services are available.
In general, we think the level of preparedness seems to be determined
by the relative size of the business or by how much the business is
regulated by State and Federal agencies. While the heavily regulated
insurance, investment, and banking industries are the furthest ahead in
the Y2K compliance efforts, health care, oil, education, agriculture,
farming, food processing, and the construction industries are lagging
behind.
The cost to regain lost operational capability for mission-critical
failures will range, we are told, from $20,000 to $3.5 million per
business, depending upon the size of your company. It is estimated that
it will take an average of 3 to 15 days to fix the problems. Large
companies with greater resources, of course, are better able to deal
with the year 2000 problem. Small and medium-sized businesses, however,
are the most vulnerable to the year 2000 disruptions. One survey shows
that more than 40 percent of 14 million small businesses do not have
any compliance plans in place.
Mr. President, I am only going to speak briefly about the problem of
litigation. I already mentioned my concerns about this and my desire
for legislation. I think the price tag of $500 billion to $1 trillion
speaks for itself. That would be a staggering cost to our Nation, not
to mention to the individual businesses that may be the subject of
litigation. It would be contrary, in my view, to our goal of
preparation, to walk blindly into the next year without taking into
consideration the question of litigation reform.
Any reform would have to be, in my view, specific. It ought to be
bipartisan, especially considering this is a very unusual circumstance.
There is no established precedent upon which to rely in making
recommendations for reform. Reform would have to be narrowly tailored,
in my view, for a very specific purpose. It would have to encourage
businesses and organizations to seek solutions and disclose progress
without fear of litigious retribution. At the same time, companies and
organizations must not be allowed to choose to do nothing and escape
responsibility. We will be looking at this in the coming weeks.
Clearly, much is left to be resolved.
Again, Senator Bennett has spoken about the interconnected
relationships of governments, all organizations, all companies and
people. To say that everything is connected is to put simple
[[Page 3327]]
words to a very complex reality. To those chief executive officers who
have told us that their Y2K exposure is nonexistent, due to early
planning and remediation efforts, I would only ask: What will you do if
power is disrupted on the grids? What will you do if you cannot ship
products? What will you do if your vendors are not Y2K compliant? To
government leaders at the local and State level who have not planned
for this, we would ask: What will you tell the people you serve if
their government cannot function? To those HMOs and physicians who are
not anticipating a Y2K-related problem, my question to you is: What
will happen if you are wrong and you do nothing?
Even if our country solves this problem, the fact that many of our
industry sectors are tied closely to international businesses and
economies will have an unknown effect on all of us. Plants grown
overseas affect the supply of pharmaceuticals here. America imports
goods ranging from produce to electronic equipment. How will our
economy be affected if some of these products do not arrive on our
shores? The fact is, what I am saying here, and what Senator Bennett
has said over and over again, is we are all in this together. You are
not protected by geographical boundaries, by political entities, or by
lamenting what is not happening offshore.
There is a storm on the horizon. We have seen the warning signs. The
question is, do we have the ability to weather this storm? We think we
do, but we have to work hard and all of us need to work together. In
weathering this potential storm, we need to continue to look closely at
the sectors of infrastructure that we have reported on in this interim
report. We need to work closely with our international neighbors who
are of particular interest to the United States, both economically and
politically, in order to better assess their problems and better
anticipate the effect that problems in their countries will have on us.
Our list of priorities for the coming months include the following:
We need to revisit the domestic industry and infrastructure sectors
first examined last year. As I indicated, we need to place increased
emphasis on international Y2K preparedness. We hope to identify
national and international security issues and concerns, some of which
we have been briefed on even as late as today, as Members of this body,
by the respective agencies of our Federal Government. We will continue
to monitor Federal Government preparedness, but also turn our attention
more to State and local government preparedness. Evaluating contingency
emergency preparedness and planning is a high priority for this year.
We need to determine the need for additional Y2K implementation or
delaying implementation dates of new regulations.
I should have made note, by the way, when speaking about our paying
attention to local governments and to municipalities, our colleague
from New York, who I think is going to come shortly to the floor, has
raised the issue.
Here he is. He has already raised the issue of how we might help the
municipalities and State governments, and I commend him once again for
bringing to this chamber the kind of vision he historically has brought
on so many other matters. I leave it to the Senator from New York to
discuss his ideas in that regard, and I leave him to comment on those
matters.
In closing, I want to reiterate the words of our colleagues when they
said we must work together. We must not let our differences keep us
apart. If we are going to cooperate, if we are going to keep this from
becoming a larger problem than it has to become, then the finger-
pointing and name-calling and recriminations that can often be
associated with this kind of an issue need to be eliminated entirely.
Again, I commend my colleague from Utah who has led this effort so
well over the past year or two--several years, now. I am very, very
confident that, whatever else may happen, we will be doing our very
best in these coming 10 months to keep our colleagues and the American
public well informed about this issue, raising concerns where we think
they are legitimate, not engaging in the hyperbolic kind of rhetoric
that can create a panic which poses its own set of problems, but to be
realistic with people, backup what we say with the kind of evidence we
think is important for the American public and others to have as we try
to work our way through this issue.
With that, I reserve the remainder of my time and am glad to yield to
my colleague from New York. I apologize, I didn't see him come in
earlier or I would have yielded to him earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The senior Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in the first instance to
congratulate the chairman of our committee and his vice chairman for
the extraordinary work they have done in less than a year. I make the
point, it is a point of Senate procedure, that it is rare there is a
chairman and vice chairman, not chairman and ranking member. This has
been a wholly bipartisan effort from the first, and I think we can see
that from the results in so brief a span.
The issue has been with us for some while, and it would be derelict
of me not to mention that it was brought to my attention by a dear
friend from New York, a financial analyst, John Westergaard, who began
talking to me about the matter in 1995. On February 13 of 1996, I wrote
to the Congressional Research Service to say: Well, now, what about
this? Richard Nunno authored a report which the CRS sent to me on June
7 saying that ``the Y2K problem is indeed serious and that fixing it
will be costly and time-consuming. The problem deserves the careful and
coordinated attention of the Federal Government, as well as the private
sector, in order to avert major disruptions on January 1, 2000.''
I wrote the President, on July 31 of that year, to relay the findings
of the CRS report and raise the issue generally. And, in time, a
Presidential appointment was made to deal with this in the executive
branch, to which I will return. But last spring--less than one year
ago--the majority leader and the minority leader had the perception to
appoint this gifted committee, with its exceptional staff, and now we
have its report before us.
Two points, followed by a coda, if I may. Shortly after the
committee's establishment, Senator Bennett and I convened a field
hearing--on July 6--in New York in the ceremonial chamber of the U.S.
Federal Court House for the Southern District of New York at Foley
Square. We found we were talking to the banks, the big, large,
international banks in the city, and the stock exchange. And we found
them well advanced in their preparations regarding this matter. I think
my colleague from Connecticut would agree. They were not only dealing
with it in their own terms, they had gone to the Bank for International
Settlements in Basel where a Joint Year 2000 Council had been
established at our initiative. They were hard at work on their own
problems. They were worried about others.
One witness told us that 49 Japanese banks planned to spend some $249
million as a group on Y2K compliance; 49 banks are thinking of spending
in combination $249 million. Citicorp was planning $600 million, and it
already expended a goodly share of that.
Indeed, it was not all our initiative, but certainly it was
serendipitous, if I can use that term, that the security industry
commenced massive testing just a week later--on July 13, 1998. The
tests went very well. The industry was on to this subject. The point
being, if you are on to this, you can handle it. It is those who aren't
who will leave us in the greatest trouble. There will be another
industry-wide test later this month. So much for private initiative.
We should be grateful for what we have learned, here and abroad. As
the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Connecticut have made clear,
there are countries that have understood this, as we have done, and are
on top of this. But there are too many other countries that don't know
the problem exists or might as well not.
As a sometime resident in India, I was interested to find that Indian
enterprises, concentrated in the Bangalore area, are very much involved
in
[[Page 3328]]
doing the computer remediation. If you would like to know something
about the world we live in, Mr. President, the work for the day is sent
to them from San Francisco or New York or Chicago; they do it
overnight, which is not overnight for them, it is the daytime, and it
is back on our desks in the morning. It is that kind of world we live
in.
Hence, to the second subject, which is the nuclear one. There is
potential here for the kind of unintended disaster of an order we
cannot describe in terms of medical care or financial statements or,
for that matter, air travel at New Year's--which is to say that the
failure of computer systems in Russia to give the correct information
about early warning systems, such that 6,000 nuclear warheads still in
Russia are not inadvertently launched. They could be, you know. They
are in place--not all--but enough. A hundred would do. Three would be a
calamity. Two were dropped on Japan and ended the Second World War.
These are all huge weapons, far above the tonnage and of a different
chemical composition than the early atomic bombs, as we have come to
know them.
The Russians seem to know they have a problem--or they may have a
problem. Or they don't know whether they do or they don't. In that
situation, ``we didn't quite catch it'' could bring incomprehensible
catastrophe just at the moment when we thought that long, dark half a
century was ended, the half century that began in 1946, when the
Soviets exploded their first nuclear device.
We have a danger here and we have an opportunity, and we ought to
respond to the one and seize the other. We are given to understand that
our Department of Defense officials have begun some negotiations,
discussions in Moscow to invite a Russian team to Colorado Springs--
where it happens our facilities in these regards are located--to let us
watch each other's nuclear launches, nuclear alerts, false alarms.
We can think, Mr. President, that this was something behind us,
surely a matter of passing. It wasn't. We have learned just recently
that in 1983, one Soviet officer, a Stanislav Petrov, a 44-year-old
lieutenant colonel, was in the Serpukhov-15 installation where the
Soviet Union monitored its early warning satellites over the United
States, and all of a sudden the lights began to flash ``Start,''
because the warning time is very short.
He made a decision on his own: they only supposed that they had
picked up a launching; the equipment picked up five ICBMs. Mankind was
spared by one lieutenant colonel in the Soviet Army who knew enough
strategic doctrine to know that the United States would never launch
five. It might launch 5,000. So as the information went up, by the
nanoseconds, through the chain of command, it was decided not to launch
a counterstrike.
That is how close we came, probably never in a more mortal way. He is
still alive and has told his tale. I ask unanimous consent that at the
end of my remarks David Hoffman's account of this in the Washington
Post be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest that we seek to reach an
agreement for the Russians to come and bring with them all their codes
and their classified communications modes, learn what our early warning
system is, tell us what they will of theirs, perhaps be open about its
own weaknesses, which are so great. These are the people who still have
the fate of mankind in their hands, and they haven't been paid in 6
months. What they talk about, evidently, is the need for money. How in
God's name we cannot provide it, I fail to see. The maintenance of our
nuclear system in the course of a half century cost $5.5 trillion. I
sometimes forget this, but in my years on the Finance Committee, I have
learned that a billion minutes ago, Saint Peter was just 30 years dead.
A billion is a large number. A trillion is beyond our capacity. They
are asking thousands of millions. Very little.
I hope Beijing might want to join. I would invite Islamabad and New
Delhi, places which are unstable and have nuclear devices. Out of that,
Mr. President, out of this immediate crisis, we might find a longrun
institution or institutions--they need not be here, exclusively--they
can be in many places--in which we would monitor one another's nuclear
activity while, pray God, we develop it down, and relearn the
confidence-building measures that were so important in the cold war.
That telephone between the Kremlin and the White House made more of a
difference than we probably know. It is this kind of thing.
I note to my dear friends--and I will get complete agreement--this
body has known fewer persons with a greater understanding of the cold
war than Senator Sam Nunn and the late Senator Henry Jackson who, in
the early 1980s, brought up the concept of a joint early warning
system. And then the MX was deployed, and we moved from essentially a
deterrence position on nuclear matters, a second-strike, if you will,
to a first-strike capacity, such that the Soviet systems had to be
constantly alarmed.
Now, maybe that idea of Senators Nunn and Jackson will come, come at
last. I would hope for two things. And I do not want to impose, and I
do not want to presume, but I will do. This is not a time for too much
delicacy.
I would hope that our chairman and vice chairman--I make that point:
the Intelligence Committee and, I believe, the Ethics Committee have a
chairman and vice chairman; all the rest is majority rule around here,
which is fine, but this is bipartisan--if they might find it possible
to visit Moscow and talk with members of the Duma there where the START
II treaty, which we took all the 1980s to negotiate, lies unratified.
And our plans for START III are, accordingly, on hold. They might go or
they might invite--some action from the Congress, I think, is in order.
And it would be no harm to point out to the Russian Government that
they now have a legislative branch. And if it acts in ways that are not
always agreeable to the executive, well, that is not an unknown
phenomena. It has been going on for two centuries in the United States.
It is an important and necessary initiative we ought to somehow pursue.
One final point. I hope my friends will not feel I am trespassing on
their--our concerns, as I am a member and am honored to be a member of
the committee--the Pentagon is too much disposed to discuss this matter
in secret session. This is a time for more openness. This is a time the
American people can be trusted with information which the Russian
authorities already have.
One of the phenomenons of the cultural secrecy which has developed
over the last century is that the U.S. Government is continuing to keep
information from us which our adversaries know perfectly well. It is
only we who do not know. This has done a perceptible harm to American
democracy. We have no idea how distant it is from the beginning of the
century when Woodrow Wilson could proclaim, as a condition of peace to
conclude the First World War, ``open covenants openly arrived at.''
Now, mind you, that same President Wilson, to whom I am devoted, in
the day after he asked for a declaration of war, he sent a series of 17
bills, which were rolled together and called the Espionage Act. It
provided for prior restraint, as lawyers call it, censorship of the
press. First Henry Lodge, on this floor, the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, said, ``Yes, I think that is a good idea.'' The
next day he came back and said, ``You know, I don't think it's a good
idea. The press should be free in this country.''
President Wilson wrote the bill manager on the House side, and said,
``Please keep it.'' It was not kept. But it was assumed it was kept, so
much so that when the Pentagon Papers were released, the executive
branch of our Government just assumed that was a crime and proceeded to
prevent their publication and find out more about the person who had
released them. And the next thing you know, we had an impeachment
hearing in the Federal Government--a crisis that all grew out of
secrecy and presumptions of secrecy.
[[Page 3329]]
I would hope--I doubt there is anybody in the Pentagon listening, but
I see the chairman and vice chairman listening--I would hope they would
say we could have an open briefing. The American people will respond
intelligently to dangers of which they are appropriately apprised. And
this surely is one.
But, sir, I have spoken sufficiently. I beg to say one last thing. On
the House side, our colleague and friend, Representative Stephen Horn
of California, has been very active producing ``report cards'' on the
status of the different departments of the Government and keeping it up
regularly. As the Senator from Connecticut observed, the Social
Security Administration got A's all along. Others have not.
It would not be a bad idea for the chairmen and ranking members of
our standing committees to review Representative Horn's report cards
and keep an eye on the departments that report to them.
Other than that, I think I have spoken long enough. I do not think,
however, I have sufficiently expressed my admiration and at times awe
of the performance of our chairman and vice chairman. The Senate is
grateful, is in their debt. So is the Nation. The Nation need not know
that; it just needs to pay attention to their message, sir.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 10, 1999]
``I Had a Funny Feeling in My Gut''--Soviet Officer Faced Nuclear
Armageddon
(By David Hoffman)
Moscow--It was just past midnight as Stanislav Petrov
settled into the commander's chair inside the secret bunker
at Serpukhov-15, the installation where the Soviet Union
monitored its early-warning satellites over the United
States.
Then the alarms went off. On the panel in front of him was
a red pulsating button. One word flashed: ``Start.''
It was Sept. 26, 1983, and Petrov was playing a principal
role in one of the most harrowing incidents of the nuclear
age, a false alarm signaling a U.S. missile attack.
Although virtually unknown to the West at the time, the
false alarm at the closed military facility south of Moscow
came during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War.
And the episode resonates today because Russia's early-
warning system has fewer than half the satellites it did back
then, raising the specter of more such dangerous incidents.
As Petrov described it in an interview, one of the Soviet
satellites sent a signal to the bunker that a nuclear missile
attack was underway. The warning system's computer, weighing
the signal against static, concluded that a missile had been
launched from a base in the United States.
The responsibility fell to Petrov, then a 44-year-old
lieutenant colonel, to make a decision: Was it for real?
Petrov was situated at a critical point in the chain of
command, overseeing a staff that monitored incoming signals
from the satellites. He reported to superiors at warning-
system headquarters; they, in turn, reported to the general
staff, which would consult with Soviet leader Yuri Andropov
on the possibility of launching a retaliatory attack.
Petrov's role was to evaluate the incoming data. At first,
the satellite reported that one missile had been launched--
then another, and another. Soon, the system was ``roaring,''
he recalled--five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic
missiles had been launched, it reported.
Despite the electronic evidence, Petrov decided--and
advised the others--that the satellite alert was a false
alarm, a call that may have averted a nuclear holocaust. But
he was relentlessly interrogated afterward, was never
rewarded for his decision and today is a long-forgotten
pensioner living in a town outside Moscow. He spoke openly
about the incident, although the official account is still
considered secret by authorities here.
On the night of the crisis, Petrov had little time to
think. When the alarms went off, he recalled, ``for 15
seconds, we were in a state of shock. We needed to
understand, what's next?''
Usually, Petrov said, one report of a lone rocket launch
did not immediately go up the chain to the general staff and
the electronic command system there, known as Krokus. But in
this case, the reports of a missile salvo were coming so
quickly that an alert had already gone to general staff
headquarters automatically, even before he could judge if
they were genuine. A determination by the general staff was
critical because, at the time, the nuclear ``suitcase'' that
gives a Soviet leader a remote-control role in such decisions
was still under development.
In the end, less than five minutes after the alert began,
Petrov decided the launch reports must be false. He recalled
making the tense decision under enormous stress--electronic
maps and consoles were flashing as he held a phone in one
hand and juggled an intercom in the other, trying to take in
all the information at once. Another officer at the early-
warning facility was shouting into the phone to him to remain
calm and do his job.
``I had a funny feeling in my gut,'' Petrov said. ``I
didn't want to make a mistake. I made a decision, and that
was it.''
Petrov's decision was based partly on a guess, he recalled.
He had been told many times that a nuclear attack would be
massive--an onslaught designed to overwhelm Soviet defenses
at a single stroke. But the monitors showed only five
missiles. ``When people start a war, they don't start it with
only five missiles,'' he remembered thinking at the time.
``You can do little damage with just five missiles.''
Another factor, he said, was that Soviet ground-based radar
installations--which search for missiles rising above the
horizon--showed no evidence of an attack. The ground radar
units were controlled from a different command center, and
because they cannot see beyond the horizon, they would not
spot incoming missiles until some minutes after the
satellites had.
Following the false alarm, Petrov went through a second
ordeal. At first, he was praised for his actions. But then
came an investigation, and his questioners pressed him hard.
Why had he not written everything down that night? ``Because
I had a phone in one hand and the intercom in the other, and
I don't have a third hand,'' he replied.
Petrov, who was assigned to the satellite early-warning
system at its inception in the 1970s, said in the interview
that he knew the system had flaws. It had been rushed into
service, he said, and was ``raw.''
Petrov said the investigators tried to make him a scapegoat
for the false alarm. In the end, he was neither punished nor
rewarded. According to Petrov and other sources, the false
alarm was eventually traced to the satellite, which picked up
the sun's reflection off the tops of clouds and mistook it
for a missile launch. The computer program that was supposed
to filter out such information was rewritten.
It is not known what happened at the highest levels of the
Kremlin on the night of the alarm, but it came at a climactic
stage in U.S.-Soviet relations that is now regarded as a
Soviet ``war scare.'' According to former CIA analyst Peter
Pry, and a separate study by the agency, Andropov was
obsessed with the possibility of a surprise nuclear attack by
the West and sent instructions to Soviet spies around the
world to look for evidence of preparations.
One reason for Soviet jitters at the time was that the West
had unleashed a series of psychological warfare exercises
aimed at Moscow, including naval maneuvers into forward areas
near Soviet strategic bastions, such as the submarine bases
in the Barents Sea.
The 1983 alarm also came just weeks after Soviet pilots had
shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and just before the
start of a NATO military exercise, known as Able Archer, that
involved raising alert levels of U.S. nuclear forces in
Europe to simulate preparations for an attack. Pry has
described this exercise as ``probably the single most
dangerous incident of the early 1980s.''
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from New York for his generous
remarks. He is always generous and gracious. I never deserve all the
nice things he says about me, but I am always glad to have him say them
nonetheless. I am grateful on this occasion as well.
Privilege Of The Floor
I ask unanimous consent that Tania Calhoun, a detailee to the
committee, be granted floor privileges for the balance of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to request a similar
privilege of the floor?
I ask unanimous consent that Jason Klurfeld of my staff, a designee
on the committee, have privileges of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you.
In the list of questions I laid out at the beginning of my
presentation, we are now at the point where we are asking the two
questions: What should we be doing next and what can we expect?
The Senator from Connecticut talked about the liability bill. I agree
with him absolutely that we cannot take this particular emergency and
turn it into a stealth operation to slip through other legislation,
even though I would be for it. The Senator from Connecticut would be
opposed to it. I would love to do that. But I think that
[[Page 3330]]
would be an inappropriate thing to try to do.
It has just come to my attention a demonstration of why we need some
kind of limited liability relief tied to this. I had an interview with
an individual who is following Y2K matters, and she said, ``What are
you going to do about insurance companies that are canceling policies
over Y2K?'' And quite frankly, I was skeptical. I said, ``I don't know
of any insurance companies that are canceling policies.''
Well, she sent me one. And here it is; it arrived today. I think that
is appropriate since this is the day we are talking about Y2K. Here--in
an area that the Senator from Connecticut has pioneered, health care--
is an insurance company that has sent out an endorsement on one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight different health care policies
that they write.
They say:
The following exclusion is added to Section III [of these
policies]:
This Policy does not apply to, and the Company will not pay
any DAMAGES or CLAIM EXPENSES . . . arising out of, or in any
way involving any actual or alleged failure of any . . .
``equipment'' . . . [relating to]:
(A) any date or time after September 8, 1999;
The reason for that, Mr. President, is because the 9th day of the 9th
month of the 99th year could trigger four 9's in a computer program and
cause it to fail.
(B) any date, time, or data representing or referring to
different centuries or more than one century;
(C) the change of the Year 1999 to the Year 2000;
Or,
(D) the Year 2000 as a leap year.
The reason for that, Mr. President, is that the algorithm used in
computers to compute dates--for reasons I won't take the time to
explain--will not recognize the 29th of February, a leap year, in the
year 2000; it recognizes it in every other leap year but it does not
recognize it in the year 2000.
Here is an insurance company that says, ``We will not pay any claims
arising from these predictable Y2K kinds of problems.'' So you have
that added burden to a company that is doing its very best to get the
Y2K thing under control and suddenly finds that their insurance policy
is being unilaterally canceled.
Now, as I have said on this floor before, I am unburdened with a
legal education, so I don't know quite how to deal with this one, but I
am sure this is something that ought to go in the mix of what we might
do with respect to some kind of legislation this year.
Another thing we should be doing next--should be doing now--has to do
with more disclosure. Here we are working very closely with the SEC.
Chairman Arthur Levitt of the SEC has been in close touch with the
committee, with Senator Dodd and me, as we have gone through this. The
SEC is working very hard to get more disclosure. Unfortunately, we
haven't had the kind of disclosure that I think shareholders are
entitled to in this area. This is one thing we ought to keep pushing
for. We ought to have more hearings. The Senator from New York talked
about that.
The authorizing committees, committees of jurisdiction, should take
up the burden of conducting oversight hearings of the Departments that
they have responsibility for. This has already happened. The Armed
Services Committee of the Senate held a very useful hearing last week
with the level of preparedness of the Secretary of Defense. I won't
repeat all the information that was developed there because it is
already in the Record, but there ought to be more of that going on as
we get closer to this. The burden of paying attention to what is going
on in the executive branch should not fall exclusively on John Koskinen
and the President's Council on the Year 2000. It should be shared by
the Congress. We should have more activity rather than less, as the
Congress stays involved in this.
Finally, we have suggested to Senators that they should meet with
their own constituents. Senator Dodd has done this in Connecticut, as I
have in Utah. Senator Smith has done it regularly in Oregon and as part
of his own education as a member of this committee. But other Senators
who are not members of the committee have been working in this way. We
on the committee are prepared to help them in this effort. We are going
to put together, in addition to the report that has been released
today, talking points and guidance information for Senators who decide
they want to hold town meetings or other meetings while they are back
in their own home States.
That is very worthwhile. It helps accomplish the twin goals of the
committee: No. 1, to calm down the panic so that people are not Chicken
Little; and, at the same time, raise the awareness in a responsible
way. Individual Senators speaking in their individual States have a
higher profile than speeches on the floor of the Senate. That is
something we ought to be doing and something that our committee will do
its very best to facilitate.
Now, this is a moving target, as we have both said. One of the areas
that has just come to light that we are going to need more information
on is the chemical industry. We were assured that everything was all
right in the chemical industry, and now we are discovering that maybe
that is not the case. The chemical industry might replace the health
care industry as an industry that we look at. This is going to require
us to pay attention through the remainder of this year, which is why
the resolution funding the committee for the coming year is the subject
of this debate.
There have been some questions, by the way, raised as to: Where is
this money coming from, and how is Senator Bennett going to pay for it?
Where is the offset? I can assure all Senators, this is part of the
overall allocation of Senate business. This is not new money; this is
money that is already in the budget. It is just being allocated to this
committee as opposed to some other use. We do not have to come up with
an offset for it under the Budget Act. For those who are concerned
about that, I assure you that is not of concern. It is a little
heartening and indicates that Senators are indeed watching this on
their television sets in their own offices. They are making these phone
calls. If they weren't calling the cloakroom asking this, then we would
know they were not paying attention.
The final question which we get all the time with respect to Y2K--
Senator Dodd gets it, I am sure; I get it almost everywhere I go--What
can we expect? Are we going to be all right? We addressed this in our
opening remarks in saying yes, we are probably going to be all right,
generally. The United States is going to have some problems, but it is
not going to be the end of the world as we know it.
I want to now focus on what I think we can expect outside of the
United States, because that is the area of greatest concern as we have
gone through this situation. There are far too many countries in the
world where Y2K has not been given the kind of attention it deserves.
Recently, to his credit, John Koskinen, the President's Y2K czar,
working with officials at the United Nations, helped put together a Y2K
Day at the United Nations and invited the Y2K coordinators from all of
the countries around the world to come to New York and participate in
this discussion at the United Nations. I went to New York, along with
Congressman Horn, to represent the legislative branch there and
demonstrate that it was not just the executive branch of the Government
that was concerned about this.
There was a very heartening turnout. A large number of countries sent
Y2K coordinators. It was a very useful day. That is the good news. The
bad news is that many of these Y2K coordinators didn't know anything
about Y2K up to about 2 weeks before they were appointed coordinator
and given a ticket to New York. They had no idea what this was about.
The fact that the United Nations was holding a day and they were
invited to come, their government said, ``Maybe we need a Y2K
coordinator to go; you go; name somebody''--he or she got on the
airplane, flew to New York, and didn't have the slightest idea what we
were talking about. That is the bad news.
[[Page 3331]]
The other bad news is that some of them simply could not afford a
ticket. The World Bank funded the airline tickets for some of these Y2K
coordinators, which raises the demonstration of the problem we have in
many countries around the world. As our consultants have spanned out
and talked to these people, many of them say, ``We recognize we have a
problem; we recognize it is very serious. We are completely broke. What
do you suggest we do about it? We simply can't afford the kind of
remediation that you are going through in the United States.''
We just had a team of consultants that came back from Russia and they
did a very valid job of assessing where things are in that country. But
they said every official that they spoke to began the conversation by
asking for money. Every single one said, ``We have a problem. Now, can
you help us solve it, because we can't afford to do anything about
it.'' Senator Moynihan was talking about the Russian military not
having been paid for months and months, and they say, ``If we haven't
got any money to pay to our military, we don't have any money to deal
with the Y2K problem.''
What will be the impact? There will be economic dislocation in many
countries as a result of this. In some countries it will be more
serious than others. The unknowable question is, What will be the
impact on the United States? I cannot quantify that for you, but I will
give you this overall assessment. I think Y2K will trigger what the
economists call a ``flight to quality.'' That is, I think investors
around the world, as they decide that infrastructure problems are going
to arise in certain countries, will decide as a matter of prudence on
their part, to withdraw their financial support for economic activity
in that country, which will cripple the country further. The speed with
which money moves around the world is now very different than it used
to be as recently as 10 or 15 years ago. It used to be when there was
foreign investment in a country, getting that investment out meant
couriers going through airports with attache cases filled with crinkly
pieces of paper handcuffed to their wrists.
Senator Dole assigned me to work on the Mexican peso problem in early
1995 when the Mexicans devalued the peso. The flight of foreign
investment from Mexico took place in a matter of hours, and it was all
done electronically--a few keystrokes at a keyboard and the money was
gone. The speed with which foreign investment fled Mexico stunned a
number of economists who had no idea that the foreign money would
disappear virtually overnight.
I think you are going to see that kind of thing repeated as foreign
investors say: Our Y2K assessment says Country X's infrastructure is
going to fail, their power system is going to go down, their
telecommunications system will fail and they won't be able to function.
Even though we are confident in the management of the company we are
backing in that country, we can't run the risk of having them shut down
because of an infrastructure failure. We are going to call the loan,
sell the stock, and do whatever is necessary to get our money out
before it really hits.
This ``flight to quality'' may very well mean that the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer as a result of Y2K, which raises the
other two unknowables, but that we need to be concerned about: One,
civil unrest in some of these countries and what that might mean to
their economies and their place in the world markets; second,
humanitarian requirements.
I say, somewhat facetiously, that we have foreign policy by CNN in
this country. That is, when the CNN cameras go into a particular area
of the world and send images back to the United States, we then
respond. CNN cameras showed starving children in Somalia and George
Bush sent in troops. I am not criticizing that decision to send in
troops, but I wonder if there might not have been starving children in
other parts of Africa that CNN didn't get into and that was the reason
we didn't intervene in those countries as well. I have a nightmare of
CNN cameras in villages or cities where there is no power, no
telecommunications, the banking system is broken down, widespread
rioting, and then the request is: What is the United States going to do
about it? The United States has its Y2K problem under control--the
richest country in the world--and we will be faced with the
humanitarian challenge of some real hardship in some real areas.
So, again, Mr. President, that is one of the reasons why the special
committee on year 2000 should be funded and continued, so that we can
monitor these things in the way we have in the past and provide
information and guidance to policymakers who have come to depend upon
us as a repository of information in this whole situation.
Mr. DODD. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I am through with my formal statement.
Mr. DODD. I see that our colleague is here, and I won't be long.
First, I want to commend Senator Moynihan from New York for an
excellent statement. He has been a real value to us on the committee.
He brings such a wealth of knowledge, information and experience. I
thought his observation about at least some of the material the Defense
Department has is a worthwhile suggestion. We might want to explore how
to make more of that information available to the general public. I
think those who are skeptical about whether or not there is legitimacy
in pursuing this committee and making the information available as we
require it, their concern would be further dispelled were they to have
the ability to share some of the information we have come across.
I commend my colleague from Utah. I think this memo where he has left
off the name--and I will respect that as well here, although I will
point out that it is not a Connecticut company. Most people would
assume that since it is an insurance company, it is probably located in
Connecticut; but it is not. We may want to compose a letter to send to
the industry as a whole. I would be very curious as to whether or not
this is a unique, isolated case, or whether or not it is being
duplicated by others.
For those who may not have heard this, we have come across a memo
which details a number of different kinds of health care policies that
would be significantly affected. In fact, they would be excluded from
payment if, in fact, the damages occur ``as a result of failure of any
machine, equipment, device, system, or component thereof, whether it is
used for the purposes or whether or not the property of the insurer to
correctly recognize, accept, and process or reform any function: any
date or any time after September 8, 1999, to January 1.''
Clearly, this is the insurance companies saying ``we are not covering
you here on this one,'' which is a very important piece of information.
I think we ought to examine and look at that.
This is an early version of OMB's March report that we have been
given which rates the Federal agencies in terms of their year 2000
compliance. Basically, there is good news here, Mr. President. An awful
lot of agencies are doing pretty well. Some have a long way to go here.
I think this may be a worthwhile item to be included in the Record.
I ask unanimous consent that Predictions by Country and Worldside
Predictions by Industry be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
PREDICTIONS BY COUNTRY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate (percent) Country
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15............................... Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada,
Denmark, Holland, Ireland, Israel,
Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom,
United States.
33............................... Brazil, Chile, Finland, France,
Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru,
Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan.
50............................... Argentina, Armenia, Austria,
Bulgaria, Columbia, Czech Republic,
Egypt, Germany, Guatemala, India,
Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia,
Poland, Puerto Rico, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
Turkey, U.A.E., Venezuela,
Yugoslavia.
66............................... Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Cambodia, Chad, China, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
Fiji, Indonesia, Kenya, Laos,
Lithuania, Morocco, Mozambique,
Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Philippines, Romania, Russia,
Somalia, Sudan, Uruguay, Vietnam,
Zaire, Zimbabwe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3332]]
WORLDWIDE PREDICTIONS BY INDUSTRY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate (percent) Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15............................... Aerospace, Banking, Computer
Manufacturing, Insurance, Investment
Services, Pharmaceuticals.
33............................... Biotechnology, Chemical Processing,
Consulting, Discrete Manufacturing,
Heavy Equipment, Medical Equipment,
Publishing, Semiconductor, Software,
Telecom, Power, Water.
50............................... Broadcast News, Hospitality, Food
Processing, Law Enforcement, Law
Practices, Medical Practices,
Natural Gas, Ocean Shipping, Pulp
and Paper, Television,
Transportation.
66............................... City and Town Municipal Services,
Construction, Education, Farming,
Government Agencies, Healthcare,
Oil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DODD. Lastly, I don't have this with me, but I am going to ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record as well, Mr.
President. I spent a couple of hours yesterday in my State with the
Garner Group, a successful firm that represents 35,000 clients
worldwide--public and private entities--and has a pretty good fix on
what is happening at home and abroad. They have a new assessment, an
updated assessment, an industry-by-industry assessment worldwide,
national assessments, and for major nations around the globe as to
where they are in all of this. I thought it might be worthwhile for the
public and our colleagues to see that most recent information.
I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
GOVERNMENT-WIDE SUMMARY--YEAR 2000 STATUS MISSION-CRITICAL SYSTEMS
[In percent]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All systems Systems being repaired
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency status Y2K complaint Assessment Renovation Validation Implementation
\1\ complete complete \2\ complete \3\ complete \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier Three:
NASA, FEMA, Education, OPM, HUD, Interior, GSA, VA, SBA, 96 100 100 99 96
EPA, NSF, NRC, SSA.......................................
Tier Two:
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, Labor, 77 100 94 83 74
State, Treasury..........................................
Tier One:
U.S. Agency for International, Development Health and 63 100 98 79 42
Human Services, Transportation...........................
All Agencies.................................................. 79 100 96 87 76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage of all mission-critical systems that will accurately process data through the century change; these systems have been tested and are
operational and includes those systems that have been repaired and replaced, as well as those that were found to be already compliant.
\2\ Percentage of mission-critical systems that have been or are being repaired; ``Renovation complete'' means that necessary changes to a system's
databases and/or software have been made.
\3\ Percentage of mission-critical systems that have been or are being repaired; ``Validation complete'' means that testing of performance,
functionality, and integration of converted or replaced platforms, applications, databases, utilities, and interfaces within an operational
environment has occurred.
\4\ Percentage of mission-critical systems that are being or have been repaired; ``Implementation Complete'' means that the system has been tested for
compliance and has been integrated into the system environment where the agency performs its routine information processing activities. For more
information on definitions, see GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, ``Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide,'' September 1997, available at http://cio.gov
under year 2000 Documents.
Mr. DODD. I point out to my chairman that one of the industries they
point out that is not doing very well--it is not doing badly, but not
very well--in terms of being Y2K compliant; it is the broadcast news
industry, and particularly television. So when my colleague refers to
``foreign policy by CNN,'' he is accurate, but one of the problems is
that CNN may have a problem--and I am sure they will respond very
quickly. But I thought it was interesting when I went over this last
evening detailing some of the industries identified as ones that have
work to do, and broadcast news was one that is lagging behind.
I also see our colleague from Oregon. Before he shares his thoughts,
I want to thank him as well. He has been a tremendous asset to our
committee. He has brought a wonderful perspective since he joined this
body, and comes from the public sector as well as the private sector.
He served in the legislature in his own State with great distinction,
but also he comes with a private sector perspective, which has been
tremendously helpful throughout the hearings. And I thank him for his
attention and for the time he has brought to this issue as well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I join my friend from Connecticut in
thanking the Senator from Oregon for his diligence on this committee.
He comes to the hearings and he contributes. He pays attention. He has
blazed a way with the meetings he held in his home State. As I say, I
would encourage all other Senators to follow his example. I am happy to
yield to him such time as he may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Thank you, Mr President. I thank Chairman
Bennett and Senator Dodd. It has been a great pleasure and a real
privilege for me to participate in this committee with them.
I can tell you that I sought membership on the committee when I heard
about its creation. I sought membership not because I am some computer
whiz--in fact, my kids are always trying to teach me new things we can
do with it--but, frankly, because I recognized that my State, as well
as yours, is very much focused on the development of the high-tech
industry. Oregon has grown in high-technology in a remarkable fashion
in the last decade. So I thought it would be important. I didn't
realize how important it would be until feeling my oats as a member of
this new committee.
Last year, I held a town hall meeting in Medford, OR. We published
notice of it. Usually at a town hall you get 20 or 30 people to show up
who want to talk about some public policy. But we said it was going to
be about Y2K. There were over 1,000 people who came to that meeting. I
realized we were on to something here.
If any of my colleagues are listening to me at this time, I would say
to them that no matter what State you are from, if you want to get the
attention of the people you are trying to serve, call a Y2K town hall.
You will be amazed. And you will perform a great public service to the
people who are becoming aware of this, mindful of it, some afraid of
it, some panicked by it.
What I have found in Oregon is that by going home to meet with my
constituents and saying, ``Look, don't panic, but begin to be
prepared,'' has had a calming effect on my State. I thank these two
leaders in the Senate, these men who led this committee, because when
they first began talking about this issue --and I know in the
Republican caucus Bob Bennett was sort of Chicken Little; he is Paul
Revere now, and I honor him and salute him as that. I think, frankly,
Chris Dodd has done the same thing in the Democratic caucus. We all
look to them with renewed respect, and deserved respect, because they
have been the Paul Reveres for this country on this issue. It has been
a great pleasure to serve with them.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill that will allow the
committee to continue to do its wonderful work. I was proud to vote
this morning for another bill that would allow the SBA to help small
businesses become Y2K compliant.
Chairman Bennett asked me to focus my service on the committee on the
whole business industry. Having come from the private sector, I will
tell you that businesses have a ways to go, but they are making great
progress, because the motive of the business man or woman is to make a
profit. I found that for a food processor, for example--whatever the
Government standard was, it was an important standard. It was always
the floor and was never the ceiling. And when I wanted to sell frozen
peas, I wasn't trying to sell it to the Government, I was trying to
sell it to Campbell Soup, whose standard is
[[Page 3333]] ____
much higher than those of the Government.
So for me as a business person, when Y2K would come to my desk, I
would say, ``How does this affect my ability to sell my product and
make a profit?''
So I say to all business people, this could affect your ability to
stay in business and make a profit. So if you are interested in a
profit, get interested in Y2K and figure out how it is that this
computer glitch might affect either your energy supply, your financial
services, your transportation, and your ability to communicate with the
world. These things are all interconnected.
I never realized as fully as I do now as a member of the committee
just how interconnected we are as a country, and now as an entire
world. I would predict, as others have, that our problems in this
country will be theirs. This is real. But it will not be of a
millennial nature, like some fear. But in some parts of the world it
may well be. And a business man or woman is going to have to figure out
how to deal with an international trade world that is having to adjust
to these Y2K problems.
I want to also say, to comfort the people out there, that the United
States is prospering right now relative to the rest of the world in a
remarkable way, in part because during the 1980s and the 1990s American
industry began to retool. As we have retooled and restored our
industrial base, we have done so with Y2K-compliant equipment and
computerization. This will all make the bump in this country much
smaller than it otherwise would be.
So there are lots of reasons for optimism. But there is still much
work to be done.
I am just pleased to participate with my colleagues today, and I know
that a vote is pending. So, Mr. President, without further delay, I
encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation. Today, I
think has become something of a Y2K Day, and it does a great service to
our whole country to alert them to the real dangers and not the
mirages.
In a hearing I recently held in my State, I heard a tragic story
about a gentleman who had listened to some literature that caused him
to panic. He went out and took all of his savings from his personal
account, roughly $30,000. But somebody heard that he had done it and
went and robbed him of his life savings.
So don't panic; just simply be prepared. Find a reasonable level of
storage for food and water for your family, take some copies of your
financial statements, check your own computers, but don't do things
that are unwarranted, because that will be something of a self-
fulfilling prophecy. We are not here to be self-fulfilling prophets; we
are here to be Paul Reveres, as Senator Bennett and Senator Dodd have
shown us how to be.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I urge an ``aye''
vote on this bill.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back all time,
both for myself and Senator Dodd, and call for the yeas and nays on the
underlying question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to S. Res. 7, as
amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is absent attending a funeral of a family member.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--6
Allard
Gramm
Gregg
Helms
Hutchison
Thomas
NOT VOTING--2
Byrd
McCain
The resolution (S. Res. 7), as amended, was agreed to.
S. Res. 7
Resolved, That section 5(a)(1) of Senate Resolution 208,
agreed to April 2, 1998 (105th Congress), as amended by
Senate Resolution 231, agreed to May 18, 1998, is amended
by--
(1) striking ``$575,000'' the second place it appears and
inserting ``$875,000''; and
(2) striking ``$200,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to once
again express my appreciation to the leaders on the subject matter just
passed overwhelmingly. The Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, and the
Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, have done outstanding work.
I think they have served not only the Senate but the country well by
highlighting the problems in this area with Y2K, but doing it in a way
that does not cause undue alarm or panic. But it has been very helpful
to Senators to hear what they have had to say, both in the closed
session and also here on the floor this afternoon. I believe they have
contributed mightily to the prospect of us dealing much more with the
problems adherent in this area and getting some results before we face
the turn of the century. So I commend them for their fine work.
____________________
EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
turn to a motion to proceed to the education flexibility bill, S. 280,
and there be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone tonight
with 3 hours 30 minutes under his control tomorrow and 30 minutes under
the control of Senator Jeffords, or his designee, and following the
conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote
on the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object. I am just inquiring of
the leader--since this is the legislation, I would like to, as the
ranking member, make a brief opening statement, as we proceed to this
motion, for 10 minutes. I ask for 10 minutes tonight.
Mr. LOTT. That probably would even be helpful if the Senator could do
that tonight.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. And then if it is agreeable----
Mr. LOTT. Do I need to modify, then, my unanimous consent request to
that effect? I don't believe I would. I will take care to make sure we
get that 10 minutes designated in the balance of our request.
[[Page 3334]]
Mr. KENNEDY. At the start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate proceeded to consider the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the motion to proceed
to S. 280.
Who yields time?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I need to just clarify a couple points
before we begin this time. I further ask unanimous consent that before
we proceed to the time designated for Senator Wellstone that Senator
Kennedy have 10 minutes to make an opening statement as the manager of
the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order Of Procedure
Mr. LOTT. Therefore, in light of this consent, there will be no
further votes this evening. The Senate will debate the motion to
proceed to the education flexibility bill this evening.
Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle in working out this agreement. I know the Senator
from Minnesota wishes to have some extended time to talk on this
matter, but we have worked it out in a way he will have his time to
talk, we will get the vote, and we can go on to debate the substance of
this very important, broadly bipartisan supported bill.
I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation in helping make this
arrangement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 10 minutes and the Senator from Minnesota will be recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I welcome the opportunity
that the Senate of the United States now in this early part of March
will be considering various education policy questions because I
believe, like other Members of this body, that the issues of education
are of central concern to families all over America. I firmly believe
that what families all over America are looking for is some form of
partnership between the local community, the State, and the Federal
Government, working in harmony to try to enhance the academic
achievement and accomplishment for the young people in this country.
I think all of us are very much aware that enhancing education
achievement is a complex issue, and therefore we have a variety of
different kinds of ideas about how best that can be achieved. I think
all of us understand that the Federal role has been a limited role. It
has been a limited role in identifying where, as a matter of national
policy, we want to give focus and attention to children in this
country. Historically, that has been the focus and attention in terms
of the neediest, the disadvantaged children in this country.
There have been other areas. For example, those that have some
special needs. We have also been helpful in providing help and
assistance to schools in terms of nutrition programs, breakfast and
lunch programs. There has been a program in terms of the bilingual,
help and assistance in Goals 2000 under President Clinton to try and
help and assist local communities to move ahead in terms of education
reform, and a number of other very important areas.
Tomorrow we will begin the debate on education policy. The issue that
is going to be before the Senate will be whether we are going to
provide additional kinds of flexibility to the States and the school
districts in their use of a number of the Federal programs that reach
out into the communities.
In 1994, we had reauthorization of the title 1 program. I joined in
the initiative with Senator Hatfield. It was his initiative in
providing a test program where we permitted a number of States to
effectively waive the regulations on the title I programs with the
assurance that the objective of the title I programs would be
maintained and that the resources could be targeted to needy children.
We have seen over a period of time a number of States take advantage of
this flexibility.
There have been other school districts which have had the opportunity
to make application--some of them have, but not many. What is before
the Senate now is the consideration to effectively permit greater
flexibility in the States and local communities for the using of title
I funds. Ninety percent of the waivers that have been considered to
date have been on the title I programs. There are other programs that
can be waivers, but those have been the title I programs.
By and large, it is for reasons that have been best established
within the local community. There have been waivers granted when they
have not been able to reach a 50-percent standard of poor and needy
children. It might be 48 or 45 or in some instances 40-percent poverty
children. Without that waiver, there would not be the kinds of
additional resources that would be available to that school to help and
assist the needy children.
Now we are embarked on a more extensive kind of a consideration of a
waiver program. What I think we understand is if we are going to get
into providing additional waivers, we need to have important
accountability about how these resources that are going to be expended
are going to be used to help and assist the academic achievement of the
targeted group, which are the neediest children. Tomorrow we will have
an opportunity to go over that particular issue with Senator Frist and
others after we have an opportunity to move toward the bill.
Mr. President, I think, quite frankly, I would have agreed that there
is a certain logic in considering the waiver provisions when we
reauthorize the total bill. I don't have an objection to the
consideration of this legislation. It may be a valuable tool in terms
of a local community if we are going to be assured that these scarce
resources that we have available that today are targeted on the
neediest children, are going to go to the neediest children; that we
are going to ensure that parents are going to be involved in any
decisions; that it is going to affect those children, and that we are
going to maintain our content and performance standards which are out
there now so we can have some opportunity to be assured that those
children are actually benefiting from any alteration or change from
what has been the Federal policy; and that there will be ultimately the
judgment of the Secretary of Education that if the measure is going to
violate the fundamental principle of the intent of the legislation,
then the power still retains within the Secretary of Education not to
permit such a waiver to move ahead. That is basically the initial issue
that we will be debating.
We will also, I think, have an important opportunity to debate the
President's proposal for smaller class size. That is something which is
very, very important. We made a downpayment with Republicans and
Democrats alike at the end of the last session to ensure additional
schoolteachers in local school districts, and now the school districts
themselves are going to wonder whether that was really a one-time only
or whether it will be as the President intended to be--a commitment
over a period of some 6 years. The afterschool programs which have been
such a success, which the President and Secretary Riley have talked
about--there will be initiatives, hopefully, in those areas. There are
excellent programs by Senator Bingaman in terms of school dropouts that
has been accepted in the past by this body; I hope we will be able to
give attention to that area.
There will be a limited but important group of amendments which we
think can be enormously helpful and valuable to our local communities
in terms of being that kind of constructive partner in enhancing the
education for the children of this country.
So that is where we are going, and I welcome the chance to have that
debate over the period of these next several days. There are many
things that are important in this session, but this will be one of the
most important.
Finally, let me say I want to pay tribute to my friend and associate
from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, who
[[Page 3335]]
has very strong views in terms of making sure these resources are going
to actually be targeted to the neediest children in this country. He
has been an effective and forceful fighter for those children. I know
he will speak for himself, but he really questions whether any of these
kinds of waivers can still give the kinds of assurances, as we have
them in the current legislation, that will target those funds to the
children. It is a powerful case that he makes--one that should be
listened to by our colleagues--and it is a very persuasive case that he
makes. We have come to a different conclusion, but I have enormous
respect and friendship for him.
I must say that our colleagues should listen to him carefully on the
points he is making, because I think he speaks for the neediest
children in this country, as he has so often. It is a position that is
a respectable position and I think a very defensible position, and I
think it underlies the kind of central concerns many of us have if we
fail to have the kind of accountability that hopefully will be included
in the legislation. So I thank him for all of his work and for his
consistency in protecting the title I children. I hope that all of our
colleagues will pay close attention to what I know will be a very
important statement.
I yield whatever time I have back, Mr. President.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 30 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Senator
Kennedy for his very gracious remarks. There is nobody in the Senate
that I have more respect for, and I much appreciate what he had to say.
I hope that we will, in fact, be in partnership on some critical
amendments. In fact, I know we will be in partnership on some critical
amendments that the Senate will be voting on.
Mr. President, I am debating this motion to proceed, and I am going
to use a half hour tonight to kind of spell out or give an outline of
where I am going to be heading, and then I will use 3\1/2\ hours
tomorrow.
Mr. President, this is what I want to say on the floor of the Senate,
and I hope that it is important. We have a piece of legislation that is
on the floor of the Senate and I wonder why. This bill is called the
Ed-Flex legislation, the Ed-Flex bill. But we never had a hearing in
the U.S. Senate--not one hearing in one committee, the Labor and Human
Resources Committee, on this bill. We never had an opportunity to
listen to different people who are down in the trenches working with
children. We never had an opportunity to carefully evaluate the pluses
and minuses. Yet, my Republican colleagues bring this bill to the
floor.
Secondly, it is absolutely true--and Senator Kennedy did an excellent
job of summarizing this--that there are a number of States that have
moved forward. I voted for the legislation--and Senator Kennedy was a
coauthor of it--to give the States flexibility. I thought the agreement
was that we would then be able to see what States have done and then
reach a final judgment as to whether or not we wanted to pass such a
sweeping piece of legislation. I will talk about why I think it is
sweeping, not in the positive but in the negative. As the General
Accounting Office pointed out, we don't have any evaluation of what
these different States have done with this flexibility. Have they used
this Ed-Flex bill to dramatically improve the opportunities for poor
children in their States or not? We don't know. Yet, this bill is now
on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I am opposed to this piece of legislation. It passed
18-1 in committee, but I am opposed to this piece of legislation. I
hope other colleagues will join me as this debate goes forward, for
several reasons. First and foremost, I believe this legislation--just
taking this bill for what it is--is a retreat from a commitment that we
made as a nation in 1965 to poor children in America. We made this
commitment and had title I as a provision in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act because we knew, unfortunately, that for all
too many poor children and their families--you know, they are not the
ones with the clout--they were not receiving the educational assistance
and support that they deserved; thus, the title I program. It is now
about $8 billion a year. I want to talk about the funding level of this
program a little later on.
What this legislation does is it essentially turns the clock back 30
or 35 years. This legislation now says that we no longer, as a nation,
as a Federal Government, will continue with this commitment. We will
give money to States and they will decide what they want to do.
I am all for flexibility. I just wonder, where is the accountability?
At the very minimum, in such a piece of legislation shouldn't there be
clear language that points out that the basic core provisions of title
I, which provide the protection for poor children in America, are
fenced off and no State will be exempt from those provisions? That is
to say that these children, low-income children, will have highly
qualified teachers who will be working with them, that these low-income
children will be held to high standards, that these low-income children
will have an opportunity to meet those standards, and that the poorest
communities with the highest percentage of low-income children will
have first priority on the title I funding that is spent. All of that,
with the legislation that is before us, can be waived. No longer will
we have any of these standards.
So you have two issues. No. 1, you have the lack of accountability on
the very core provisions of title I that are so important in making
sure that this is a program that works for poor children. No. 2, you
have a problem just in terms of dilution of funding.
One of the amendments I will have on the floor will say that this
title I funding that goes to different States--that those schools with
75 percent low-income students, or more, will have first priority in
that funding. The funding has to first go to those schools. Right now,
with this legislation, we have moved away from that. In 1994, when we
went through this, we had an amendment that said that schools with over
75 percent low-income students had first priority for this funding. Now
we abandon that in this legislation. So, first of all, let me be
crystal clear about why I object to this. I object to this piece of
legislation because it represents an abandonment of a national
commitment to poor children in America, and, frankly, I am disappointed
in my colleagues. I am disappointed in my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, but I am especially disappointed in my Democratic
colleagues. Where is our sense of justice? Whatever happened to our
fight for poor children? How could we have let this legislation just
move forward and come right to the floor in its present form? Where is
our voice? I don't understand it.
I am sorry if I sound--well, I am worried about sounding self-
righteous; I don't want to, but I certainly feel strongly about this. I
think the silence of the Democrats is deafening on this question.
Now, second of all, Mr. President, I am going to take time tonight--I
won't take much time tonight, but I will have a lot of time tomorrow--
to raise another question about this legislation. No wonder people in
our country become cynical about politics because this Ed-Flex bill--
see, I understand the politics of it. It is hard to vote against it. It
is called Ed-Flex, which is a great title.
Then we say get the money to the States, get the Federal Government
out, it is politically--yes. I see how it works. But do you want to
know something? I don't want to let anybody --any Republican or any
Democrat--pass this legislation off as some great step forward in
expanding opportunities for children. It is not a great step forward
for children. It is a great leap backwards. It is a great leap
backwards because it is an abandonment of our commitment to poor
children. It is an abandonment of our standard which should be met by
title I programs for poor children. I will tell you something else; it
is a great leap backwards, or a great leap sideways, because it doesn't
[[Page 3336]]
represent what we should be doing for children in this country.
Tomorrow I will have an opportunity to outline some of the directions
that I am going to go in. But let me just raise a few questions.
When I am home, what most people in communities tell me that are down
in the trenches working with children, and what most of the State
legislators tell me who are education legislators, is, ``Paul, the
Federal Government is a real player in a number of different areas.''
Title I is one, and another is early childhood development. Here is how
you can help us out pre-K. We have a White House conference on the
development of the brain. We have all this literature that has come
out. I have read a lot of it about the development of the brain. The
fact is irrefutable and irreducible--that if we don't get it right for
children by age 3, many of them will never be prepared for school. They
will come to kindergarten way behind and then they will fall further
behind and further behind and then they will wind up in prison.
But we don't have a piece of legislation out here on early childhood
development. And, frankly, the President's budget is pathetic, much
less the Republicans' proposing even less. I mean, in the President's
budget, I think maybe at best 20 percent of those low-income families
that would be eligible for assistance are going to be able to receive
any. And what about middle-income? I cannot believe that we are
continuing to play symbolic politics with children's lives.
If we were serious about a piece of legislation on the floor of the
U.S. Senate that would really do something positive for children, then
we would be about the business of making sure that working families can
afford the very best child care for their children. And we don't do
that. Instead, we get Ed-Flex, which won't do one additional positive
thing that will help expand educational opportunities for children in
this country, especially among poor children of this country.
Mr. President, let me talk about another area that I think is really
important.
Children's Defense Fund study this past year: Every day in America
three young people under age 25 die from HIV infection, 6 children
commit suicide; 13 children are homicide victims; 14 children are
killed by firearms; 81 babies die; 280 children arrested for violent
crime; 434 babies are born to mothers who have late or have no prenatal
care; 781 babies are born at low-birth weights; 1,403 babies are born
to teen mothers; 1,087 babies are born without health insurance; 2,430
babies are born into poverty; 2,756 children drop out of high school
every schoolday; 3,346 babies are born to unmarried mothers; 5,753
children are arrested; 8,470 children are reported abused or neglected;
11.3 million children are without health insurance; and, 14.5 million
children live in poverty.
Do we have a piece of legislation out here on the floor that deals
with the fact that one out of every four children under the age of 3 in
America are growing up poor? Do we have a piece of legislation that
deals with the reality that one out of every two children of color
under the age of 3 in America are growing up poor?
I was talking to about 350 principals in Minneapolis-St. Paul about 2
weeks ago. And they said to me, ``There is another issue, Paul.'' It is
not just that so many kids come to school way behind. Ed-Flex does
nothing for those children. It is also that a lot of children come to
school emotionally scarred. These children have seen violence in their
homes. They have seen violence in their neighborhood. And they need a
whole lot of additional support.
Is there a piece of legislation out on the floor that calls for the
Federal Government to get resources to local communities, then let them
be flexible, let them design the programs that can provide the support
for these children? No. Not at all. Instead we get Ed-Flex.
Mr. President, we have a program in this country called Head Start.
It does just what the title says it does. It is an attempt to give a
head start to children who come from impoverished backgrounds. I am
amazed at the men and women that are Head Start teachers. I am amazed
at the men and women that are child care workers. Their work is so
undervalued. They barely make above minimum wage. Do we have a piece of
legislation out here on the floor that provides more funding for Head
Start? No. Mr. President, instead, we have a budget from the President
that essentially says that we will get the funding to one-half of the
eligible Head Start families and children at best. It is an
embarrassment. It is an embarrassment. We have a program, a Head Start
program, to provide a head start for children from impoverished
backgrounds. We know it makes a real difference, and we don't even
provide the funding for half of the children that could benefit. I
don't think that is pre-teen. I think that is just 4 and 5-year-olds,
much less early Head Start.
Does Ed-Flex do anything about providing the support for children for
the Head Start program? No. Does it speak to early childhood
development? No. Does it speak to afterschool care? No. My colleagues
will have amendments on the floor. And good for them. We will be
supporting them and speaking for them about smaller class sizes, about
rebuilding crumbling schools, about involving parents, about giving
children hope. All of that is important. Does this piece of legislation
deal with any of that? No.
Mr. President, I am going to present some jarring statistics that
translate into personal terms tomorrow about the whole lack of equity
financing in education. I will draw from my friend, Jonathan Kovol, who
wrote ``Savage Inequality.'' It is incredible that some children in our
country--probably not the children of Senators and Representatives--go
to schools without adequate lab facilities, without enough textbooks,
without proper heat, delapidated buildings. And they don't have the
financing. They don't have the financing for computers. They don't have
the financing so students can be technologically literate. They don't
have the financing for the best teachers. There are huge disparities.
Does this piece of legislation called Ed-Flex do anything to deal
with the fact that we have such dramatic inequalities in access to good
education for children in America? Does this piece of legislation, Ed-
Flex, say that since our economy is doing so well, surely today we can
provide a good educational opportunity for every child? No. It doesn't
do any of that. What it does is it turns the clock back.
I can't believe so many of my colleagues have caved in to this. How
could we have let a bill come to the floor pretending to be a great
initiative to improve the education of our children when it doesn't,
and, in addition, turns the clock back and takes the accountability and
takes some of the core requirements of title I, and no longer makes
that the law of the land, no longer says that we have a national
commitment, and essentially says to the States do what you want without
any accountability? What do you think is going to happen to these
children? Some States may be better. I hope it will be in Minnesota. I
will tell you what. I will make some of my colleagues angry in other
States. It will be worse. It will be worse.
That is why we have title I. That is why we have the IDEA program. We
know that unless you have a real commitment to children--IDEA is not
covered in this bill. But unless you have a real commitment to children
with disabilities, or low-income children, they are not going to get
the assistance or the support.
Let me now turn to the third argument I want to make tonight, and I
will develop this in much more detail tomorrow.
Here is the other thing that is so disingenuous about this Ed-Flex
legislation. We ought to have some direction--and I will try to have an
amendment that talks about this--for funding. We are spending $8
billion a year, and that is about a third, according to the
Congressional Research Service, of what we need to be spending if we
are, in fact, going to reach all the children who are eligible for this
help and all the schools that are eligible. And you know what. When I
met with the teachers, when I met with the principals,
[[Page 3337]]
when I met with the educators in my State of Minnesota, they could not
identify one provision in title I right now that needs to be changed in
order for them to have the flexibility to do their best for children.
And when we get into the debate, I am going to ask my colleagues to
list what exactly the provisions are that create the problem, that
create the impediment for the reform to do our best by these children.
So far I haven't heard of any. I haven't heard of one statute. I
haven't seen any of my colleagues identify one statute.
I will tell you what the men and women who are involved in education
and who care about children tell me about title I. ``Senator, we don't
have enough funding.'' That is what this is all about. We don't provide
enough funding, and then it becomes a vicious zero sum game. So, for
example, if you are a school with over 50 percent low-income children,
you get some help for those children, but if you are under 50 percent,
even though you have a lot of children, you don't get any funding at
all. That is because we have such a limited amount of funding, and when
we divide it up in our school districts, we allocate it to the schools
with the highest percentage of poor children, but then many other
schools with many poor children don't get any funding at all.
Let me give some examples. St. Paul. There are about 60 K-12 public
schools in the St. Paul School District in Minnesota. There are 20
schools in St. Paul with at least 50 percent free and reduced lunch
that receive no title I funds at all. One-third of St. Paul schools
have significant poverty and receive no title I funds to help eliminate
the achievement or learning gap.
There it is right there. Where is the discussion of the funding? We
are making Ed-Flex out to be some great thing for our school districts
and our local communities and we are not providing the resources that
are needed.
Example. Five senior high schools receive no title I funding.
Humboldt Senior High has 68 percent of its students on free and reduced
lunch, no title I. A school with a 68 percent low-income population
doesn't receive any title I funding because after we allocate it, there
is so little that it goes to schools with an even higher percentage of
low-income students. There is nothing left.
Let's get honest and let's get real and let's talk about funding if
we want to make a difference.
Several middle schools receive no title I funding. Battle Creek
Middle School has 77 percent free and reduced lunch but receives no
title I funds. Frost Lake Elementary School, 68 percent free and
reduced but no title I. Eastern Heights Elementary School, 64 percent
free and reduced but no title I. Mississippi Magnet Elementary School,
67 percent of the students are low income, no title I.
The St. Paul School District in Minnesota, if it had another $8
million, could reduce class size, it could increase parental
involvement, it could have good community outreach, and it could hire
additional staff to work with the students who have the greatest need.
But we don't have the funding. And we have a bill out here called Ed-
Flex that pretends to be some great, some significant commitment to
children and to education in our country. Can't we do better than that?
Let me talk about Minneapolis, and this is just a draft of what
Minneapolis is expecting on present course. Here is what Minneapolis is
going to get with Ed-Flex but no additional funding. This is basically
what is going to happen. Of the 87 K-12 schools in Minneapolis, 31
schools will receive no title I funds, 14 schools which have at least a
50 percent low-income student population will receive no title I. That
is unbelievable. Schools that have over 50 percent low-income student
population do not receive any funding because there is not enough
funding. I don't hear any discussion in this Ed-Flex bill about funding
or pointing us in the direction of additional funding.
Let me give some examples. Burroughs Elementary School, 43 percent
free and reduced, will receive no title I funding. Anthony Elementary
School, 42 percent low-income, no title I funding. They would use the
money for afterschool tutoring to improve math and science, to improve
technology, to increase staffing and to improve parental involvement.
Marcy Open Elementary School, 44 percent low-income, no title I
funding. The school is in danger of losing 10 educational assistants
because the funding level doesn't keep up with the kids and what needs
to be done. Kenny Elementary School, 39 percent low-income, no title I
funding. This school would use the additional resources, if they had
them, for additional tutors in small group instruction, to buy certain
computer-assisted instruction, make the ``Read Naturally'' Program
available to more students, and focus on the students who are English
language learners. No funding. Dowling Urban Environmental Learning
Center, 45 percent free and reduced lunch, no title I, and they would
use this to help prevent students from becoming special ed students, do
early intervention to help students succeed.
Well, Mr. President, I don't know how much time I have remaining
tonight. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Six minutes. Well, let me just kind of read from--I
will give plenty of examples tomorrow of great success, but I have just
a few comments from constituents of mine. Vicki Turner says:
The title I program of the Minneapolis public schools
provided not only help for my two children, but the parental
involvement program was crucial in helping me develop as an
individual parent and now as a teacher for the program.
Gretchen Carlson Collins, title I director, Hopkins School District,
said:
There is no better program in education than title I of the
ESEA. We know it works.
John and Helen Matson say:
How can anyone question the need for a strong ESEA. Ed-Flex
waivers are an invitation to undermine the quality of public
school systems.
High school senior Tammie Jeanelle Joby was in title I in third
grade.
Title I has helped make me the hard-working student that I
am. My future plan after high school is to attend St.
Scholastica. I may specialize in special education or
kindergarten.
And the list goes on.
Mr. President, tomorrow I will develop each of these arguments.
Tonight, let me just kind of signal to my colleagues that I am debating
this motion to proceed, and I will have amendments and I will fight
very hard on this piece of legislation because this is a rush to
recklessness. Unfortunately, the recklessness has to do with the lives
of children in America, specifically poor children in America. And I
find it hard to believe that we have a piece of legislation which will
have such a critical and crucial impact on the lack of quality of lives
of children in our country that we brought this piece of legislation to
the floor of the Senate without even a hearing, and we brought this
piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate without even seeing how
different Ed-Flex States, which are part of the demonstration projects,
are doing right now.
Mr. President, I am not going to let my colleagues, Republicans or
Democrats, pretend that this piece of legislation represents some major
step forward for education for children in America. It does not. I
think at least some of my colleagues--Senator Kennedy spoke about
this--are going to have some amendments that I think really will make a
difference.
Second, I am going to make it as clear as I can tomorrow, and as
crystal clear as I can with amendments and with debate--and I am ready
for the debate--that in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for the
U.S. Senate to support a piece of legislation which essentially turns
its back on or abandons our national commitment to poor children in
America to make sure that the standards are met, that there are good
teachers, that the money goes to the neediest schools and the neediest
children, that there are high standards, that the schools are required
to meet those standards, that we have some evidence of progress being
made. The core requirements of title I must remain intact.
This piece of legislation on the floor right now does not require
this to be
[[Page 3338]]
the case. This piece of legislation essentially removes those core
requirements and leaves up to the States what they want to do. This
piece of legislation essentially wipes away the requirement that the
money should go to the neediest schools first and allows States to do
what they want to do. That is not acceptable. That is an abandonment of
our commitment to low-income children in America. I look forward to
this debate.
I yield the floor.
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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the topic which I would like to speak
about during this brief time on the floor is one which is important to
millions of Americans and involves two of our most important and
successful programs: Social Security and Medicare.
They are so important to so many families that President Clinton has
proposed that 77 percent of the surplus which we anticipate over the
next few years be invested in both of these programs so that they will
be available for future generations of Americans.
There are some who believe that the surplus, as it is generated,
should be spent instead and invested in tax cuts for Americans. Of
course, any politician, any person in public life, proposing a tax cut
is going to get a round of applause. People would like to pay less in
taxes, whether they are payroll taxes, income taxes, or whatever. But
we have to realize that a tax cut is instant gratification and what the
President has proposed instead is that we invest the surplus in
programs with long-term benefits to not only current Americans but
those of us who hope in the years ahead to take advantage of them as
well.
We have to keep the security in Social Security and the promise of
good medical care in our Medicare Program. And I think we have to
understand that just solving the problems of Social Security is not
enough; income security goes hand in hand with health care security.
One of the proposals coming from some Republican leaders suggests
that there would be a tax cut. And as you can see from this chart, the
Republican investment in Medicare under this plan is zero, and the
Republican investment in tax cuts, $1.7 trillion.
Now, of course, that is quite a stark contrast. Instead of prudent
investments, I am afraid that many of those who suggest tax cuts of
this magnitude are not really giving us the bread and butter that we
really need for these important programs like Social Security and
Medicare. Instead, they are handing out these candy bar tax cuts. I do
not think that that is what America needs nor what we deserve. Let me
take a look at the tax cut as it would affect individual American
families.
There is a question that many of us have when we get into the topic
of tax cuts, and that is the question of fairness, progressivity: Is
this tax cut really good for the average working family? One of the
proposals which has been suggested by a Republican leader and
Republican candidate for President, who serves in the House of
Representatives, is an across-the-board tax cut. Well, take a look at
what this means for the families of average Americans.
For the lower 60 percent of wage earners in America, people making
$38,000 or less, this Republican tax cut is worth $99 a year, about
$8.25 a month--not even enough to pay the cable TV bill. But if you
happen to be in the top 1 percent of the earners, with an average
income of $833,000, your break is $20,697.
I listened over the weekend while one of our noted commentators,
George Will, who was born and educated in my home State of Illinois,
suggested: Well, of course, because people who make this much money pay
so much more in taxes, they should get a larger tax cut.
We have been debating this for a while, but we really decided it
decades ago. In a progressive tax system, if you are wealthy, if you
have higher income, then in fact you will pay more in taxes. So I do
not think it is a revelation to suggest that people making almost a
million dollars a year in income are going to end up paying more in
taxes. Well, the Republican tax cut plan, as it has been proposed, an
across-the-board tax cut, does very little for the average person, but
of course is extremely generous to those in the highest income
categories.
Today in America, 38 million citizens rely on Medicare, including 1.6
million in my home State of Illinois. By the time my generation
retires, this number will have increased substantially. With these
increasing numbers of Americans relying on Medicare, and advances in
health care technology currently increasing costs, any way you look at
it, you need more money for the Medicare Program, unless you intend to
do one of several things:
You can slash the benefits; you can change the program in terms of
the way it helps senior citizens; you can ask seniors and disabled
Americans who use Medicare, who are often on fixed incomes, to shoulder
substantially higher costs; you can significantly reduce the payments
to providers, the doctors and the hospitals; or you can increase
payroll taxes by up to 18 percent for both workers and their employers.
A report that was released today by the Senate Budget Democrats lays
out some of these harsh alternatives that would be necessary if the
Republicans refuse to make investments in the Medicare Program.
President Clinton says, take 15 percent of the surplus, put it in
Medicare; it will not solve all the problems of Medicare, but it will
buy us 10 years to implement reforms in a gradual way. The Republicans,
instead, suggest no money out of the surplus for Medicare, and instead
put it into tax cuts. I think that is a rather stark choice.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I am so pleased that the Senator from Illinois has once
more come to the floor to discuss something so fundamental to our
country. I think if you asked people in the country, ``What is good
about your national Government?'' yes, they would say a strong
military; they would also say Social Security and Medicare.
Has the Senator talked about the 1995 Government shutdown yet?
Mr. DURBIN. Go ahead.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask him a few questions and then let him finish
his remarks.
As the Senator was talking and showing this chart, it brought back to
me the 1995 Government shutdown. We remember what that was about.
Essentially, the President took a very firm stand in favor of Medicare,
the environment, and education, and against the kind of tax cuts for
the wealthy that would have meant devastating those programs. And the
Government actually shut down over this. I am sure my friend remembers,
it was a stunning thing. But it was really tax cuts for the wealthy,
taking it straight from Medicare.
Now what we have is a situation that is very similar. We know we have
to fix Social Security. The Republicans have said they agree with that,
but they are silent on the issue of Medicare. They do nothing about
shoring it up whatsoever. And yet they propose the same kind of tax
cuts.
So I say to my friend, in 1995 Republicans essentially shut down the
Government because they wanted these tax cuts at the expense of
Medicare. And this year it looks like they are shutting down Medicare
so they can go back to these tax cuts.
I wonder if he sensed, as I did, as we watched this budgetary debate
unfold--
[[Page 3339]]
if it did not bring back all these memories, and how he feels about
that, because it was a pretty tough time we went through and I do not
want to see those times repeated.
I ask my colleague to comment.
Mr. DURBIN. Of course I remember that period of time. It was an
amazing period. I recall particularly the commentator, Rush Limbaugh,
who enjoys some notoriety across America. He said: You know, if they
closed down the Federal Government, no one would even notice. They were
kind of goading us to go ahead and call the bluff of those who wanted
to shut it down.
Well, in fact the Government was shut down when Congress failed to
pass the necessary bills to continue the funding of Government
agencies. And across America people started noticing. I am sure the
Senator from California--I was then a Congressman from Illinois--
received phone calls from people saying, ``Wait a minute. You mean to
tell me that these workers cannot go to work and they're going to be
paid ultimately? You mean to say the services that we depend on, that
Government needs to do, aren't going to be performed?'' And that is
exactly what happened.
I think the American people were outraged over this, outraged that
the Government would shut down. If there were those on the other side
who believed that the American people would rally to their cause over
this Government shutdown and say, ``Oh, you've got it right, give tax
cuts to wealthy people, and go ahead and cut Medicare and cut the
environmental protection and cut education programs,'' that did not
happen.
Mrs. BOXER. I wonder if the Senator would share with us the chart
that he has there, because that goes back to 1995.
Mr. DURBIN. Yes. I am happy to.
Really, it is a good illustration of what happened. Back in 1995 with
the Government shutdown, this was a time when the Republican Party was
calling for tax cuts of $250 billion and was going to cut Medicare for
that to occur. And that is exactly what led to the President's veto of
their bill and ultimately led to the shutdown of the Government.
Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend again, I appreciate his
leadership on this. We did hold a press conference today, the
Democratic members of the Budget Committee, to call everyone's
attention to this.
When you deal with a budget the size of this Federal budget, it has a
lot of important things that we do. But this is one thing that we need
to call attention to, the fact that if we are going to protect Social
Security and Medicare, we are going to have to defer these tax cuts for
the wealthiest people, some of them earning millions of dollars, who
would get back tens of thousands of dollars, while the average person
would get back $99. As a result, we would see Medicare essentially shut
down as we know it, and we don't want to go through another Government
shutdown of that nature. We don't want a Medicare shutdown; we don't
want an education shutdown. We want a budget that addresses these
issues.
Again, I thank my colleague. He and I have known each other a long
time. We have both gone through the situation of aging parents
together. We have talked many times about how important Medicare is. I
will never forget my friend and I being on the floor of the Senate when
there was a move to raise the eligible age for Medicare. He and I stood
here and fought. We said right now people are praying that they will
turn 65 so they can get some health insurance, and then if we increase
that age when we should actually be reducing the age that people can
get Medicare--we should allow the President's plan to go forward on
that as well, to allow people to buy in if they have no Medicare at 55,
60, and 62. This was going to raise the age. We told the stories of our
families and how Medicare brought peace to our aging parents.
So we are, I think, going to stand shoulder to shoulder through to
the fight.
I want to again thank him for yielding.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California.
Of course, she raises a point near and dear to all of us. Some people
think Medicare is a program that seniors worry about. I think it is a
program that their children worry about. They want to make sure that
their mothers and fathers--grandparents in some instances--have the
protection of Medicare. It is hard to believe this program only dates
back about 35 years. It is a program that has now become so essential,
and it is a program that has worked.
As a result of the Medicare Program, people are living longer, the
quality of health care for elderly people has improved. At the same
time, the Medicare Program has really democratized health care across
America. Hospitals, which once might have served the very elite
clientele, now serve virtually everyone because they are part of the
Medicare Program. I think that is a plus. I think that says a lot about
our country.
I worry when I look at the alternative budget plans here because the
Democratic plan is very specific. It says if there is to be a surplus--
and we think there will be--that this surplus should be used for
specific purposes: to save Social Security and to preserve Medicare.
Unfortunately, on the other side, there is no mention of Medicare. The
Republican proposal doesn't talk about putting any of the surplus into
Medicare.
That, I think, is shortsighted, because if you don't put the surplus,
a portion of it, into Medicare, it causes some terrible things to
occur. For instance, to extend Medicare to 2020 without new investment,
without the influx of capital which we are talking about in the
surplus, and without benefit cuts and payroll tax increases, we would
need to cut payments to providers by over 18 percent. That is a cut of
$349 billion. For the average person, these figures, I am sure, swim
through their head. They think, What can that mean?
What it means is your local hospital, your local doctor, the people
who are providing home health care for elderly people to stay in their
homes, would receive less in compensation. As they reduce their
compensation, many of them will not be able to make ends meet. I have
seen it happen in Illinois already.
I have been somewhat critical of the Clinton administration. Some of
the changes they have made in home health care services, I think, are
very shortsighted. Many seniors, for example, would love to stay in
their homes. That is where they feel safe and comfortable. They have
the furniture and the things they have collected through their lives
and their neighbors who they know. They don't want to head off to some
other place, a nursing home or convalescent home. They would much
rather stay in their home. What do they need to stay there? Many times
just a visit by a nurse, a stop by a doctor once in a while. Although
that seems extraordinary in this day and age, the alternative is a much
more expensive situation where someone finds himself in a nursing home
with extended and expensive care.
I hope that we realize that we made a mistake in 1995 when we had
this Republican tax cut of $250 billion at the expense of Medicare and
the Government was shut down. I hope we don't repeat it. We called the
hospitals in our State of Illinois back in 1995 and asked what would
this mean to you, if, in fact, you lost some $270 billion in Medicare
reimbursement; what would it mean? Most of the hospitals were reluctant
to speak openly and publicly and on the record. They told us privately
many of them would have to close because many hospitals in my home
State of Illinois and rural States like Kansas depend to a great extent
on Medicare and Medicaid to reimburse their services and to keep their
doors open. So, cutbacks can cost us the kinds of hospitals we need in
areas that, frankly, are underserved medically.
Large cuts that might be envisioned without dedicating part of the
surplus could threaten many of these hospitals. When a hospital closes,
it isn't just the seniors who are affected. The whole community
suffers. It is a situation in
[[Page 3340]]
many of my rural towns and downstate Illinois where that emergency
room is literally a matter of life or death. Farmers, miners and people
who work around their homes count on the availability of their
services. When a hospital's financial security is put under significant
strain, they are forced to look for other sources of revenue. Cost
shifting becomes inevitable. So virtually every American would pay for
Congress' failure to invest in Medicare.
The second option, if we don't invest a portion of the surplus into
Medicare, is one that would ask seniors and disabled to pay more for
their own medical care. They would need to double their contributions
to extend the solvency of Medicare to the year 2020 if the President's
proposal of investing 15 percent of the surplus into Medicare is not
made.
Take a look at this chart to get an idea of what it means to a senior
citizen. This is a chart which shows the current amount that is being
paid in part B premium of $1,262; then take a look, if we do not
dedicate a part of the surplus, what the senior will have to pay
instead. Instead of $100 a month, it is over $200 a month.
Some might say it is not too much to go from $100 to $200. I think
they don't understand that many senior citizens live on fixed incomes,
very low incomes, and that this kind of premium increase in order to
continue Medicare as they know it would cause a great hardship to many
of their families.
Today, on average, seniors pay 19 percent of their income to purchase
the health care that they need. Medicare is currently only paying about
half of their bills. These seniors living on fixed incomes are really
going to face some sacrifice if this increase takes place. The medium
total annual income of Americans over the age of 65 is a mere $16,000;
for seniors over 85, it is even less, $11,251; for the oldest and
frailest among us, such as those using home health services, the
average income is less than $9,000. Now, can someone making about $800
a month, for example, see an increase in their Medicare premium from
$100 to $200 without some personal sacrifice? I don't think so.
Medicare as it is currently drawn up helps seniors to live with
dignity. Medicare reform may involve tough choices but it shouldn't
involve mean choices. This Medicare reform on the backs of seniors and
disabled, unfortunately, leads us to that.
Reform and investment are clearly needed to strengthen Medicare.
There are some who will say all you want to do is spend more money; you
have to do more fundamental things like reform. I don't disagree with
the concept of reform. I think it is part of the package. But the
reality is, the Medicare Program has grown, the number of beneficiaries
has doubled since the program was enacted, and Americans are living
longer.
I think there is a fair argument to be made that one of the reasons
that Americans are living longer is because of Medicare and the access
to health care that it provides. Before Medicare, less than 50 percent
of retirees had health insurance. Now, virtually every one of them
does. This is a question of priority. How much do we value increased
life expectancy? Are people in my generation who are working and
actually contributing to the surplus--a surplus that we hope to soon
have--willing to put off a tax cut to make sure that Social Security
and Medicare are there for decades? Are we willing to invest in what is
basically our own retirement health insurance program in the years to
come?
By not enacting a massive tax cut that benefits the most wealthy
Americas, but instead passing more limited tax cuts targeted to help
working families, we can, in fact, get a tax cut that is reasonable and
consistent with saving Social Security and Medicare. It seems very
unwise to enact large tax cuts before we secure both of these important
programs.
Let me close by saying that this budget season is one that causes
many people's eyes to glaze over. I have served a combination now of
about 8\1/2\ years on Budget Committees in the House and the Senate. I
do my best to keep up with it. It is an arcane science to follow this
budget politics. But I have to say that it does reflect our values. We
have to decide what is important.
Last week, we had a bill on the floor here that was, on its face, a
very good proposal--a bill that would have increased military pay and
retirement benefits. I believe that those things should happen. The
President proposed it, the Republican Party and Democratic Party agree
on it. But the bill that came to the floor was significantly different
than the President's proposal. In fact, it spent about $17 billion more
over 6 years than the President had proposed.
This bill came to the floor of the Senate without one committee
hearing. Some came to the floor and said we need to do this so that men
and women will stay in the military, and that we give them adequate pay
and the reward of retirement. So they suggested we vote for the bill. I
didn't think it was a responsible thing to do. I can remember that, two
years ago, on the floor of the Senate we tied ourselves in knots over
amending the Constitution to provide for authority to the Federal
courts to force Congress to stop deficit spending. We had reached our
limits and we had said that the only thing that could control
congressional spending is a constitutional amendment and court
authority. Well, that constitutional amendment failed by one vote. But
that was only two years ago. We were so despondent over dealing with
deficits two years ago that we were at the precipice where we were
about to amend the Constitution and virtually say we have given up on
congressional responsibility in this area.
Well, here we are two years later, and the first bill we consider is
not a constitutional amendment about deficits, but rather one over
spending this surplus on military pay raises that we cannot justify in
terms of their sources. I have asked a variety of members and people in
the administration where would the extra money come from--the extra $17
billion--for military pay raises. They say, ``Frankly, we don't know.''
I don't think that is a good way to start the 106th Congress, in terms
of its substantive issues; but it is a reminder that we need a budget
resolution that honestly looks at our budget to maintain not only a
balanced budget, but surpluses for years to come, and investment of
those surpluses in a way that we can say to future generations that,
yes, we understood; we had a responsibility not only to the seniors,
but to the families and their grandchildren, to make sure that those
programs would survive.
So, Mr. President, I hope that as this debate continues we can find
some common ground to work together to make sure that the surplus as it
exists in the future is invested in programs of real meaning to
American families for many years to come.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to a period for morning business with members permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT AND THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTRONIC
COMMERCE
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the last Congress passed the Internet Tax
Freedom Act. it was not an easy process, and compromises were reached.
In the end, the debate resulted in a bill which made a good law. It
calls for a 3-year moratorium on new taxes. This was important, Mr.
President. The Internet is not only a new tool of communication and
information but is fast becoming the most vibrant new marketplace as
[[Page 3341]]
America goes into the next millennium. Having said that, I am aware of
the concerns expressed by those on main street as well as mayors--from
Greenwood to Belzoni to Shuqualak, Mississippi--and in towns all across
America.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the distinguished Majority
Leader's enthusiasm for the potential of electronic commerce and his
assessment of the role of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in the
encouragement of that potential. I also appreciate the concerns he
referenced about the need for balance on the Advisory Commission on
Electronic Commerce. The advisory panel can provide policymakers with
valuable perspective on many of the issues that must be resolved if the
potential of electronic commerce is to be fully realized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that is correct. Congress did recognize that
an examination of e-commerce was needed to fully understand the ripple
effects of taxing access to or transactions conducted on the Internet.
During Senate deliberations on the bill, my colleagues and I listened
intently to varying viewpoints. Consequently, the statute created a
national Commission reflecting the stakeholders who would provide
recommendations to Congress. Mr. President, the balance required by the
statute has yet to be achieved. The Congressional leadership involved
in the selection is taking another look at the current makeup of the
membership and considering options to resolve the impasse.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with the Majority Leader. When
Congress debated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, considerable attention
was paid to the section of the bill that delineated the membership of
the Advisory Commission. The legislation is very clear in specifying a
balanced makeup of this panel. While some adjustments have already been
made in an effort to achieve that goal, further discussion of the make
up of the Commission and the requirements of the statute is clearly
required.
As the Majority Leader knows, state and local governments have a lot
at stake with respect to the deliberations of this Commission, and the
Internet Tax Freedom Act anticipates their full participation on the
panel. If we hope to reach consensus on a uniform taxation system that
allows electronic commerce to flourish without eroding state and local
tax bases, a balanced, representative Commission is in all parties'
self-interest.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Internet has arrived, and it is
worldwide. Let me share a few statistics. There are an estimated 66,000
new users a day, e-commerce is growing at about 200% a year, web sites
went from 10,000 to 3.2 million in just 3 years. Congress needs the
Commission's recommendations, and I look forward to reviewing them.
____________________
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday,
March 1, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,643,045,679,358.32 (Five
trillion, six hundred forty-three billion, forty-five million, six
hundred seventy-nine thousand, three hundred fifty-eight dollars and
thirty-two cents).
Five years ago, March 1, 1994, the federal debt stood at
$4,554,537,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-four billion,
five hundred thirty-seven million).
Ten years ago, March 1, 1989, the federal debt stood at
$2,743,808,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred forty-three billion,
eight hundred eight million).
Fifteen years ago, March 1, 1984, the federal debt stood at
$1,473,047,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred seventy-three billion,
forty-seven million).
Twenty-five years ago, March 1, 1974, the federal debt stood at
$470,866,000,000 (Four hundred seventy billion, eight hundred sixty-six
million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--
$5,172,179,679,358.32 (Five trillion, one hundred seventy-two billion,
one hundred seventy-nine million, six hundred seventy-nine thousand,
three hundred fifty-eight dollars and thirty-two cents) during the past
25 years.
____________________
HANNAH COVINGTON McGEE, AN EXCEPTIONAL LADY
Mr. HELMS. There are times, Mr. President, when every Senator, on one
occasion or another, for one reason or another, feels the need to share
with his colleagues a moment of grief or happiness or sadness or hope.
This being a time like that for me, Mr. President, my purpose is to
share a few thoughts about a wonderfully gifted, beautiful, thoughtful
lady named Hannah Covington McGee.
I suppose I should begin, Mr. President, by stating that Hannah
married a young fellow named Jerry McGee 33 years ago. Dr. Jerry McGee
today is president of Wingate University, a splendid Baptist
institution in North Carolina. Jerry is the kind of friendly, caring
and active husband and father with an enthusiasm for his responsibility
as a top-flight educator--and his privilege of being Hannah's husband
all those years.
Mr. President, Jerry and Hannah this past weekend were enjoying a
six-week sabbatical at Tortola Island, one of the British Virgin
Islands. Their stay on Tortola had been, both said last week, the
happiest weeks of their lives. It all ended when Hannah was awakened
Sunday morning suffering an excruciating numbness which quickly
developed into the massive cerebral hemorrhage that claimed Hannah
McGee's life at such an early age.
Hannah grew up in Rockingham in North Carolina. At age 14 she caught
the eye of a star athlete at Richmond County Senior High School. She
married that star athlete years later--- after both of them had
finished college. They immediately began together devoting their lives
to young people.
A mutual friend asked Jerry about Hannah. Jerry's response was that
Hannah provided the kind of relationship that everyone dreams of; he
confirmed that he had been in love with Hannah since his high school
football days when she was that 14-year-old girl with the ponytail.
Mr. President, services for that beautiful, loving and caring Hannah
will be held at the Wingate Baptist Church tomorrow very close to the
campus of Wingate University. She will be remembered as one who was
forever and tirelessly doing things for others and, as Jerry McGee put
it, ``It never once occurred to her that anybody ought to do anything
for her.''
Mr. President, I certainly know nothing more than anyone else about
the hereafter, or what will happen on that inevitable day for all of
us. But I suspect that Saint Peter was standing at the Pearly Gate
Sunday motioning for Hannah to come in and take her seat on the right
hand of God who loves her just as all of us who know her do.
Mr. President, The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer this morning published a
detailed story, written by Wendy Goodman, praising Hannah McGee. I ask
unanimous consent that Wendy Goodman's fine article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Charlotte (NC) Observer, Mar. 2, 1999]
Wingate President's Wife--and Much More--Dies
(By Wendy Goodman)
Wingate.--When Wingate University celebrates the opening of
the George A. Batte Fine Arts Center later this year, a woman
who had a hand in making the center a reality won't be there.
Hannah McGee helped lead the fund-raising campaign and
decorate the new building's interior. An art lover, McGee
hoped Wingate would serve as a cultural center for Union
County.
McGee died Sunday morning in San Juan, Puerto Rico, of a
brain aneurysm. She was 54.
``She had a great eye for things beautiful and artistic,''
said friend Stelle Snyder. ``You could see her love for the
arts in her home, in her work at Wingate, in anything she
did.
``Hannah had so many responsibilities behind the scenes,
and she loved her work.''
Monday, flags at Wingate University flew at half-staff in
honor of Hannah McGee. As the wife of Wingate President Jerry
McGee, she left a lasting impression on the university and
the entire community.
A Rockingham native, she moved to Wingate about 6\1/2\
years ago when her husband was named president of the
university. But Hannah McGee was more than a president's
wife, friends said.
``Hannah touched so many things in her own special way here
at Wingate,'' said
[[Page 3342]]
friend Barbara Williamson. ``People never even knew all the
hard stuff Hannah did because it was all behind the scenes.''
Hannah McGee helped launch English as a second language
program in Union County. As a board member of the Union
County Players, she made costumes and worked backstage for
several performances.
She played a major role in beautifying and restoring the
M.B. Dry Memorial Chapel at the school. She never hesitated
to open the doors to her home and entertain students, faculty
and other guests.
``Bit by bit, we'll see Hannah's no longer with us,''
Snyder said.
Jerry McGee had taken a three-month sabbatical leave from
the university in January to relax and spend more time with
his wife of 33 years. The McGees were childhood sweethearts,
and Jerry McGee often referred to Hannah as ``the girl with
the ponytail who stole my heart.''
The couple were in Tortola in the British Virgin Islands
when Hannah McGee got sick. She was flown to a San Juan
hospital and died Sunday morning.
``She was the mother, wife, daughter and sister that
everyone dreams of--one of the easiest people to love who
ever lived,'' Jerry McGee said in a news release Monday.
Hannah McGee is survived by her husband and two adult sons,
Ryan and Sam.
Funeral services will be 11 a.m. Wednesday at Wingate
Baptist Church and burial will follow at Dockery Family
Center in Rockingham. A memorial service also will be March 9
in Austin Auditorium on the Wingate University campus.
____________________
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 106TH CONGRESS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate belatedly begins this
congressional session, I look forward to working with the Democratic
Leader, the Majority Leader, Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and all Senators again this year with respect to
fulfilling our constitutional duty regarding judicial nominations.
Last year the Senate confirmed 65 federal judges to the District
Courts and Courts of Appeals around the country and to the Court of
International Trade. That was 65 of the 91 nominations received for the
115 vacancies the federal judiciary experienced last year.
Together with the 36 judges confirmed in 1997, the total number of
article III federal judges confirmed during the last Congress was a 2-
year total of 101--the same total that was confirmed in one year when
Democrats made up the majority of the Senate in 1994. The 104th
Congress (1995-96) had resulted in a 2-year total of only 75 judges
being confirmed. By way of contrast, I note that during the last two
years of the Bush Administration, even including the presidential
election year of 1992, a Democratic Senate confirmed 124 federal
judges.
As we begin this year there are 64 current judicial vacancies and
seven more on the horizon. In 1983, at the beginning of the 98th
Congress there were only 31 vacancies. Even after the creation of 85
new judgeships in 1984, the number of vacancies had been reduced by a
Democratic majority in the Senate for a Republican President to only 41
at the start of the 101st Congress in 1989.
After the first Republican Senate in a decade, during the 104th
Congress (1995-96), the number of unfilled judicial vacancies increased
for the first time in decades without the creation of any new
judgeships. Vacancies went from 65 at the start of 1995, to 89 at the
start of the 105th Congress in 1997. That is an increase in judicial
vacancies of 37 percent without a single new judgeship having been
authorized.
We made some progress last year when the Senate confirmed 65 judges.
That only got us back to the level of vacancies that existed in 1995.
If last year is to represent real progress and a change from the
destructive politics of the two preceding years in which the Republican
Senate confirmed only 17 and 36 judges, we need to at least duplicate
those results again this year. The Senate needs to consider judicial
nominations promptly and to confirm without additional delay the many
fine men and women President Clinton is sending us.
We start this year already having received 19 judicial nominations. I
am confident that many more are following in the days and weeks ahead.
Unfortunately, past delays mean that 26 of the current vacancies, over
40 percent, are already judicial emergency vacancies, having been empty
for more than 18 months. A dozen of the 19 nominations now pending had
been received in years past. Ten are for judicial emergency vacancies.
The nomination of Judge Paez to the Ninth Circuit dates back over three
years to January 1996. Judge Paez along with three others were reported
favorably by the Judiciary Committee to the Senate last Congress but
were never considered by the full Senate. I hope that the Senate will
confirm all these qualified nominees without further delay.
In addition to the 64 current vacancies and the seven we anticipate,
there is also the longstanding request by the Federal judiciary for
additional judges who are needed to hear the ever growing caseload in
our Federal courts. In his 1998 Year-End Report of the Federal
Judiciary, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted: ``The number of cases brought
to the federal courts is one of the most serious problems facing them
today.'' Criminal cases rose 15 percent in 1998, alone. Yet the
Republican Congress has for the past several years simply refused to
consider the authorization of the additional judges requested by the
Judicial Conference.
In 1984 and in 1990, Congress did respond to requests for needed
judicial resources by the Judicial Conference. Indeed, in 1990, a
Democratic majority in the Congress created judgeships during a
Republican presidential administration.
In 1997, the Judicial Conference of the United States requested that
an additional 53 judgeships be authorized around the country. If
Congress had passed the Federal Judgeship Act of 1997, S. 678, as it
should have, the Federal judiciary would have 115 vacancies today. That
is the more accurate measure of the needs of the federal judiciary that
have been ignored by the Congress over the past several years.
In order to understand the impact of judicial vacancies, we need only
recall that more and more of the vacancies are judicial emergencies
that have been left vacant for longer periods of time. Last year the
Senate adjourned with 15 nominations for judicial emergency vacancies
left pending without action. Ten of the nominations received already
this year are for judicial emergency vacancies.
In his 1997 Year-End Report, Chief Justice Rehnquist focused on the
problem of ``too few judges and too much work.'' He noted the vacancy
crisis and the persistence of scores of judicial emergency vacancies
and observed: ``Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable
time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote.'' He
went on to note: ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm
any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it
should vote him up or vote him down.''
During the entire four years of the Bush Administration there were
only three judicial nominations that were pending before the Senate for
as long as 9 months before being confirmed and none took as long as a
year. In 1997 alone there were 10 judicial nominations that took more
than 9 months before a final favorable vote and 9 of those 10 extended
over a year to a year and one-half. In 1998 another 10 confirmations
extended over 9 months: Professor Fletcher's confirmation took 41
months--the longest-pending judicial nomination in the history of the
United States--Hilda Tagle's confirmation took 32 months, Susan Oki
Mollway's confirmation took 30 months, Ann Aiken's confirmation took 26
months, Margaret McKeown's confirmation took 24 months, Margaret
Morrow's confirmation took 21 months, Judge Sonia Sotomayor's
confirmation took 15 months, Rebecca Pallmeyer's confirmation took 14
months, Dan Polster's confirmation took 12 months, and Victoria
Roberts' confirmation took 11 months.
I calculate that the average number of days for those few lucky
nominees who are finally confirmed is continuing to escalate. In 1996,
the Republican Senate shattered the record for the average number of
days from nomination to confirmation for judicial confirmation. The
average rose to a record 183
[[Page 3343]]
days. In 1997, the average number of days from nomination to
confirmation rose dramatically yet again, and that was during the first
year of a presidential term. From initial nomination to confirmation,
the average time it took for Senate action on the 36 judges confirmed
in 1997 broke the 200-day barrier for the first time in our history. It
was 212 days. Unfortunately, that time is still growing and the average
is still rising to the detriment of the administration of justice. Last
year, in 1998, the Senate broke the record, again. The average time
from nomination to confirmation for the 65 judges confirmed in 1998 was
over 230 days.
At each step of the process, judicial nominations are being delayed
and stalled. Judge Richard Paez, Justice Ronnie L. White, Judge William
J. Hibbler and Timothy Dyk were each left on the Senate calendar
without action when the Senate adjourned last October. Marsha Berzon,
Matthew Kennelly and others were each denied a vote before the
Judiciary Committee following a hearing. Helene N. White, Ronald M.
Gould and Barry P. Goode, were among a total of 13 judicial nominees
never accorded a hearing last year before the Judiciary Committee.
At the conclusion of the debate on the nomination of Merrick Garland
to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as
23 Republicans were preparing to vote against that exceptionally well-
qualified nominee whose confirmation had been delayed 18 months,
Senator Hatch said ``playing politics with judges is unfair, and I am
sick of it.'' I agree with him. I look forward to a return to the days
when judicial nominations are treated with the respect and attention
that they deserve.
It is my hope that we can start in the right spirit and move in the
right direction by reporting out the nominations of Timothy Dyk to the
Federal Circuit; Judge Richard Paez and Marsha L. Berzon to the Ninth
Circuit; William J. Hibbler and Matthew F. Kennelly to the District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois; and Ronnie L. White to the
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. They have each
already had confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Four of the six have previously been reported favorably by
the Committee. The Senate should act to confirm these six nominees
before the end of the month.
We should proceed to confirmation hearings for Helene N. White,
Ronald M. Gould, Barry P. Goode, Lynette Norton, Legrome D. Davis and
Virginia Phillips. Each of these nominations has been before the
Committee for more than nine months already. It is time for us to
proceed.
With the continued commitment of all Senators we can make real
progress this year. We can help fill the longstanding vacancies that
are plaguing the Federal judiciary and provide the resources needed to
the administration of justice across the country.
____________________
VETERANS' ACCESS TO MEDICARE
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Mr. Jeffords in co-
sponsoring the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act. This bill
requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to create a demonstration program to allow Medicare-
eligible veterans to receive their treatment at VA treatment
facilities. This is a thoughtful approach to try to help our veterans,
especially our elderly veterans, receive all of their treatments in one
place. In the process, we hope to save money for the taxpayers and get
greater benefits for our treatment dollars.
This is a voluntary program to establish 10 regional sites nationwide
to provide this new service. This bill calls out several criteria for
potential sites: one must be near a closed military base, one must be
in a predominantly rural area, and no new buildings must be built as
part of this program. I'm especially interested in the potential for
Montana to be the rural site. We currently have veterans traveling
hundreds of miles for their VA treatments. By establishing some type of
joint VA/Medicare program, we create opportunities to expand access and
improve continuity of medical care for Montana Veterans.
I'm encouraged by the awareness being raised in the VA recently for
our State. The recent town meetings by the VA officials are just the
beginning. My presence there was intended to show the VA how serious we
take the necessity of improvement. We have to get better. My commitment
through the coming months is to look for additional ways to ease
communication between Montana Veterans and the Washington, D.C.
establishment. We also need to increase the opportunities for Veterans
to hear more about the future plans for Veterans' health care. Again,
I'll be working on both of these topics this spring.
We owe our veterans a debt of service for their sacrifices for our
country. The program in this bill is a great opportunity for us to be
fiscally responsible while improving the care and treatment of a group
of honored citizens. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this
bill.
____________________
SPACE TRANSPORTATION LOAN GUARANTEES
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Mr. Breaux in co-
sponsoring the Commercial Space Transportation Cost Reduction Act. This
is a appropriate extension of programs that we have used to encourage
other fledgling industries such as shipbuilding and rail. Through this
legislation, we hope to build a commercially competitive launch
industry here in America that brings the world's satellites to our
doorstep for launch into orbit.
This bill sets up loan guarantee programs; not grant handouts, but
loan guarantees to help encourage commercial investment in start-up
space industries. We want to encourage anyone with an idea good enough
to raise some start up funds to approach the financial market with some
assurance that their request for business loans will be approved. By
placing $500 million in a NASA account in a guarantee program, we will
leverage growth and investment to many times that. To encourage truly
competitive ideas, we've placed a number of guidelines on this bill. We
will only guarantee a maximum of 80% of the capitol required for a
space vehicle construction project, the rest must be raised privately.
Ten to twenty percent of the pool is set aside for small businesses,
and we've specifically excluded the DoD launch vehicle development
programs currently underway. There is a credit-worthiness requirement
with specific loan criteria for being eligible for the loan. Finally,
it guarantees the U.S. Government the best price for any launch system
developed under this program. To make sure that no launch companies
become dependent on this funding, we've provided for an expiration of
this program in 10 years.
I'm especially interested in the potential benefit to Montana. Many
start-up companies choose to locate in Western states where they have
room to actively test their ideas and inventions. When combined with
VentureStar's interest in Montana, this loan guarantee program could
help develop a space technology region in our state that would attract
high-tech companies with high-tech jobs. Montana already has a lot to
offer, and I'm convinced that this program is one more way to give
potential businesses a reason to make Montana their headquarters.
As seen this past summer, launching rockets is a risky business even
for well-established companies. We need to find ways to encourage banks
to qualitatively judge the overall risks and invest in creative new
ways to get satellites into orbit. By providing loan guarantees to
qualified companies, we can grow our capable domestic launch program
into the world's choice for getting access to space. I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.
[[Page 3344]]
executive messages referred
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting one treaty
and sundry nominations which were referred to the appropriate
committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
REPORT OF FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997--
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT--PM 12
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 Governmental Affairs.
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 701 of the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-454; 5 U.S.C. 7104(e)), I am pleased to transmit
the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
for Fiscal Year 1997.
The report includes information on the cases heard and decisions
rendered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the General Counsel
of the Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, March 2, 1999.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
H.R. 350. An act to improve congressional deliberations on
proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other
purposes.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. BOND, from the Committee on Small Business, without
amendment:
S. 364. A bill to improve certain loan programs of the
Small Business Administration, and for other purposes (Rept.
No. 106-6).
By Mr. GRAMM, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, without amendment:
S. 313. A bill to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935, to enact the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 1999, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 106-7).
By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with
amendments:
S. 247. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to
reform the copyright law with respect to satellite
retransmissions of broadcast signals, and for other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
The following executive reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. WARNER, from the Committee on Armed Services:
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be brigadier general
Col. James B. Armor, Jr.
Col. Barbara C. Brannon
Col. David M. Cannan
Col. Richard J. Casey
Col. Kelvin R. Coppock
Col. Kenneth M. Decuir
Col. Arthur F. Diehl, III
Col. Lloyd E. Dodd, Jr.
Col. Bob D. Dulaney
Col. Felix Dupre
Col. Robert J. Elder, Jr.
Col. Frank R. Faykes
Col. Thomas J. Fiscus
Col. Paul J. Fletcher
Col. John H. Folkerts
Col. William M. Fraser, III
Col. Stanley Gorenc
Col. Michael C. Gould
Col. Paul M. Hankins
Col. Elizabeth A. Harrell
Col. Peter J. Hennessey
Col. William W. Hodges
Col. Donald J. Hoffman
Col. William J. Jabour
Col. Thomas P. Kane
Col. Claude R. Kehler
Col. Frank G. Klotz
Col. Robert H. Latiff
Col. Michael G. Lee
Col. Robert E. Mansfield, Jr.
Col. Henry A. Obering, III
Col. Lorraine K. Potter
Col. Neal T. Robinson
Col. Robin E. Scott
Col. Norman R. Seip
Col. Bernard K. Skoch
Col. Robert L. Smolen
Col. Joseph P. Stein
Col. Jerald D. Stubbs
Col. Kevin J. Sullivan
Col. James P. Totsch
Col. Mark A. Volcheff
Col. Mark A. Welsh, III
Col. Stephen G. Wood
Col. Donald C. Wurster
The following Air National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force, to
the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Michael B. Smith
The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve
of the United States Marine Corps to the grade indicated
under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Leo V. Williams, III
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. John R. Baker
Brig. Gen. John D. Becker
Brig. Gen. Robert F. Behler
Brig. Gen. Scott C. Bergren
Brig. Gen. Paul L. Bielowicz
Brig. Gen. Franklin J. Blaisdell
Brig. Gen. Robert P. Bongiovi
Brig. Gen. Carrol H. Chandler
Brig. Gen. Michael M. Dunn
Brig. Gen. Thomas B. Goslin, Jr.
Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Johnston
Brig. Gen. Michael S. Kudlacz
Brig. Gen. Arthur J. Lichte
Brig. Gen. William R. Looney, III
Brig. Gen. Stephen R. Lorenz
Brig. Gen. T. Michael Moseley
Brig. Gen. Michael C. Mushala
Brig. Gen. Larry W. Northington
Brig. Gen. Everett G. Odgers
Brig. Gen. William A. Peck, Jr.
Brig. Gen. Timothy A. Peppe
Brig. Gen. Richard V. Reynolds
Brig. Gen. Earnest O. Robbins, II
Brig. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt
Brig. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz
Brig. Gen. Todd I. Stewart
Brig. Gen. George N. Williams
(The above nominations were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I
report favorably 40 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine
Corps, and Navy which were printed in full in the Congressional Records
of February 3, 1999, and February 4, 1999 and ask unanimous consent, to
save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
In the Air Force nominations beginning Bruce R. Burnham,
and ending Mahender Dudani, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Air Force nominations beginning Malcolm M. Dejnozka,
and ending Gaelle J. Glickfield, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Air Force nominations beginning *Les R. Folio, and
ending Daniel J. Feeney, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Air Force nomination of Vincent J. Shiban, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Air Force nomination of Kymble L. Mccoy, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Air Force nominations beginning Robert S Andrews,
and ending David J Zollinger, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Air Force nominations beginning Richard L Ayres, and
ending William C Wood, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February
3, 1999.
In the Air Force nominations beginning Peter C Atinopoulos,
and ending George T Zolovick, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning George L. Hancock, Jr.,
and ending Sidney W. Atkinson, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Samuel J. Boone, and
ending Donna C. Weddle, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Frederic L. Borch, III,
and ending Stephanie D. Willson, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
[[Page 3345]]
In the Army nomination of Wendell C. King, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning George A. Amonette, and
ending Kenneth R. Stolworthy, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning *Craig J. Bishop, and
ending David W. Niebuhr, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Dale G. Nelson, and
ending Frank M. Swett, Jr., which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nomination of Dennis K. Lockard, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Stuart C. Pike, and
ending Delance E. Wiegele, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nomination of Franklin B. Weaver, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Thomas J. Semarge, and
ending *Jeffrey J. Fisher, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nomination of *William J. Miluszusky, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Army nomination of *Daniel S. Sullivan, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Christopher A. Acker, and
ending X1910, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning George L. Adams, III, and
ending Juanita H Winfree, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Lisa Andersonlloyd, and
ending Peter C Zolper, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February
3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Mark O. Ainscough, and
ending Arthur C Zuleger, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Gregg T. Anders, and
ending Carl C Yoder, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February
3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Robert V. Adamson, and
ending Jack W Zimmerly, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of Terry G. Robling, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of Milton J. Staton, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of Stephen W. Austin, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of William S. Tate, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of Robert S. Barr, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of John C. Lex, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of Lance A. Mcdaniel, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of Joseph M. Perry, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nomination of Myron P. Edwards, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nominations beginning David J Abbott,
and ending Kevin H Winters, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Navy nomination of Jose M. Gonzalez, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Navy nomination of Douglas L. Mayers, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 3, 1999.
In the Navy nominations beginning Errol F. Becker, and
ending Eduardo R. Morales, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 3, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Tim O. Reutter, and
ending *John M. Griffin, which nominations were received by
the Senate on February 3, 1999, and appeared in the
Congressional Record of February 4, 1999.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 491. A bill to enable America's schools to use their
computer hardware to increase student achievement and prepare
students for the 21st century workplace; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner,
Mr. Robb, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 492. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Act to
assist in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr.
Edwards):
S. 493. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, to evaluate, develop, and
implement pilot projects in Maryland, Virginia, and North
Carolina to address problems associated with toxic
microorganisms in tidal and non-tidal wetlands and waters; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Roth, Mr.
Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Kerrey, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bryan, Mr.
Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Robb,
and Mr. Murkowski):
S. 494. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to prohibit transfers or discharges of residents of
nursing facilities as a result of a voluntary withdrawal from
participation in the medicaid program; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr.
Inhofe):
S. 495. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the
highway sanctions; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 496. A bill to provide for the establishment of an
assistance program for health insurance consumers; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 497. A bill to designate Great Kills Park in the Gateway
National Recreation Area as ``World War II Veterans Park at
Great Kills"; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 498. A bill to require vessels entering the United
States waters to provide earlier notice of the entry, to
clarify the requirements for those vessels and the authority
of the Coast Guard over those vessels, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Dorgan,
Mr. Levin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Murkowski,
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 499. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative
medal for organ donors and their families; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr.
Jeffords, and Mr. Helms):
S. 500. A bill to amend section 991(a) of title 28, United
States Code, to require certain members of the United States
Sentencing Commission to be selected from among individuals
who are victims of a crime of violence; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 501. A bill to address resource management issues in
Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 502. A bill to protect social security; 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. ALLARD:
S. 503. A bill designating certain land in the San Isabel
National Forest in the State of Colorado as the ``Spanish
Peaks Wilderness''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 504. A bill to reform Federal election campaigns; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 505. A bill to give gifted and talented students the
opportunity to develop their capabilities; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
[[Page 3346]]
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Breaux,
Mr. Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 506. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to permanently extend the provisions which allow
nonrefundable personal credits to be fully allowed against
regular tax liability; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bennett, and Mrs.
Boxer):
S. 507. A bill to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 508. A bill to prohibit implementation of ``Know Your
Customer'' regulations by the Federal banking agencies; read
the first time.
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 509. A bill to amend the Peace Corps Act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 to carry
out that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Grams):
S. 510. A bill to preserve the sovereignty of the United
States over public lands and acquired lands owned by the
United States, and to preserve State sovereignty and private
property rights in non-Federal lands surrounding those public
lands and acquired lands; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 511. A bill to amend the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act to ensure the equal right of
individuals with disabilities to vote, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Edwards):
S. 512. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for the expansion, intensification, and coordination
of the activities of the Department of Health and Human
Services with respect to research on autism; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
S. Res. 55. A resolution making appointments to certain
Senate committees for the 106th Congress; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr.
Robb):
S. Res. 56. A resolution recognizing March 2, 1999 as the
``National Read Across America Day'', and encouraging every
child, parent and teacher to read throughout the year;
considered and agreed to.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 491. A bill to enable America's schools to use their computer
hardware to increase student achievement and prepare students for the
21st century workplace; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
the ``education for the 21st century act''
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``E-21''--the
Education for the 21st Century Act.
The E-21 Act will help ensure that all middle school graduates attain
basic computer literacy skills that will prepare them for high school
and beyond, and ultimately, for the 21st Century workplace. The E-21
Act will also allow all school districts to obtain and utilize the
latest high-quality educational software, free of charge.
Mr. President, the first piece of legislation I introduced in the
Senate was to provide financial assistance to introduce computers into
schools, to help students learn and expand their horizons. That was in
1983. Back then, it was the exceptional school that even had a
computer. It was an unusual teacher or student who knew how to use one.
That legislation was enacted into law. Along with other resources, it
helped bring computers into our schools as part of everyday learning.
Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I got my start in the
computing business. Back then, computers filled large rooms and were so
expensive that only the largest corporations could afford their own
computing centers. Today, even more powerful computers sit on a desktop
in millions of homes, schools and businesses across the nation.
Mr. President, we've made great strides toward introducing computers
into schools, but too many of these computers are not being utilized to
their potential due to lack of updated computer training for teachers.
Mr. President, a recent study by the Educational Testing Service
confirmed that computers do increase student achievement and improve a
school's learning climate. However--and this is critical--the study
specified that to achieve those results, teachers must be appropriately
trained and use effective educational software programs. Otherwise,
these computers become mere furniture in a classroom.
To boost student achievement through computers and technology, my
``Education for the 21st Century Act'' will provide up to $30 million
per year to train a team of teachers from every middle school in the
nation in the most up-to-date computing technology. These Teacher
Technology leaders could then share their training with the rest of the
faculty in their schools, so all teachers are ready to pass these
skills on to their students.
Mr. President, the E-21 Act will also create national educational
software competitions, open to high school and college students, to
work in partnership with university faculty and professional software
developers. The best of these software packages would be available
free-of-charge over the Internet through the Department of Education's
web page.
Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues that this
emphasis on computer training is not at the expense of the fundamental,
basic skills that underlie education: reading, writing and arithmetic.
It's still important to master these traditional basics. But we should
also add a ``new basic'' to the list--computer literacy. Americans will
need those skills to compete in the 21st Century.
Mr. President, this proposal is part of President Clinton's FY 2000
Budget, and as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and a member of
the Appropriations Committee, I will work to see that it is funded for
years to come.
Mr. President, as a businessman who got his start at the beginning of
the computing age, I am proud to see the way our nation has led the
world in computer technology. I want to make sure that we continue to
lead--through the second computer century--the 21st Century.
I therefore ask my colleagues to support ``E-21''--the Education for
the 21st Century Act.
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. 491
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 ``Education for the 21st
Century (e-21) Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to enable America's schools
to use their computer hardware to increase student
achievement and prepare students for the 21st century
workplace.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Establishing computer literacy for middle school
graduates will help ensure that students are receiving the
skills needed for advanced education and for securing
employment in the 21st century.
(2) Computer literacy skills, such as information
gathering, critical analysis and communication with the
latest technology, build upon the necessary basics of
reading, writing, mathematics, and other core subject areas.
(3) According to a study conducted by the Educational
Testing Service (ETS), eighth grade mathematics students
whose teachers used computers for simulations and
applications outperformed students whose teachers did not use
such educational technology.
(4) Although an ever increasing amount of schools are
obtaining the latest computer
[[Page 3347]]
hardware, schools will not be able to take advantage of the
benefits of computer-based learning unless teachers are
effectively trained in the latest educational software
applications.
(5) The Educational Testing Service (ETS) study showed that
students whose teachers received training in computers
performed better than other students. The study also found
that schools that provide teachers with professional
development in computers enjoyed higher staff morale and
lower absenteeism rates.
(6) Some of the most exciting applications in educational
technology are being developed not only by commercial
software companies, but also by university faculty and
secondary school and college students. The fruit of this
academic talent should be channeled more effectively to
benefit our Nation's elementary and secondary schools.
SEC. 4. MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LITERACY CHALLENGE.
(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is
authorized to award grants to States that integrate into the
State curriculum the goal of making all middle school
graduates in the State technology literate.
(b) Uses.--Grants awarded under this section shall be used
for teacher training in technology, with an emphasis on
programs that prepare 1 or more teachers in each middle
school in the State to become technology leaders who then
serve as experts and train other teachers.
(c) Matching Funds.--Each State shall encourage schools
that receive assistance under this section to provide
matching funds, with respect to the cost of teacher training
in technology to be assisted under this section, in order to
enhance the impact of the teacher training and to help ensure
that all middle school graduates in the State are computer
literate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
SEC. 5. HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR ALL SCHOOLS.
(a) Competition Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is
authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to
secondary school and college students working with university
faculty, software developers, and experts in educational
technology for the development of high-quality educational
software and Internet web sites by such students, faculty,
developers, and experts.
(b) Recognition.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Education shall recognize
outstanding educational software and Internet web sites
developed with assistance provided under this section.
(2) Certificates.--The President is requested to, and the
Secretary shall, issue an official certificate signed by the
President and Secretary, to each student and faculty member
who develops outstanding educational software or Internet web
sites recognized under this section.
(c) Focus.--The educational software or Internet web sites
that are recognized under this section shall focus on core
curriculum areas.
(d) Priority.--
(1) First year.--For the first year that the Secretary
awards grants under this section, the Secretary shall give
priority to awarding grants for the development of
educational software or Internet web sites in the areas of
mathematics, science, and reading.
(2) Second and third years.--For the second and third years
that the Secretary awards grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to awarding grants for the
development of educational software or Internet web sites in
the areas described in paragraph (1) and in social studies,
the humanities, and the arts.
(e) Judges.--The Secretary shall designate official judges
to recognize outstanding educational software or Internet web
sites assisted under this section.
(f) Downloading.--Educational software recognized under
this section shall be made available to local educational
agencies for free downloading from the Department of
Education's Internet web site. Internet web sites recognized
under this section shall be accessible to any user of the
World Wide Web.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb,
and Mr. Santorum):
S. 492. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Act to assist in
the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with a
number of my colleagues, a bill to continue and enhance the efforts to
clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring this bill are my
colleagues from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Senators
Mikulski, Warner, Robb, and Santorum.
Mr. President, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the
United States and the key to the ecological and economic health of the
mid-Atlantic region. The Bay, in fact, is one of the world's great
natural resources. We tend to take it for granted because it is right
here at hand, so to speak, and I know many Members of this body have
enjoyed the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay provides thousands of jobs for the
people in this region and is an important component in the national
economy. The Bay is a major commercial waterway and shipping center for
the region and for much of the eastern United States. It supports a
world-class fishery that produces a significant portion of the
country's fin fish and shellfish catch. The Bay and its waters also
maintain an enormous tourism and recreation industry.
The Chesapeake Bay is a complex system. It draws its life-sustaining
waters from a watershed that covers more than 64,000 square miles and
parts of six states. The Bay's relationship to the people, industries,
and communities in those six states and beyond is also complex and
multifaceted.
I could continue talking about these aspects of the Bay, but my
fellow Senators are aware of the Bay's importance and have consistently
regarded the protection and enhancement of the quality of the
Chesapeake Bay as an important national objective.
Through the concerted efforts of public and private organizations, we
have learned to understand the complexities of the Bay and we have
learned what it takes to maintain the system that sustains us. The
Chesapeake Bay Program is an extraordinary example of how local, State,
regional, and Federal agencies can work with citizens and private
organizations to manage complicated, vital, natural resources. Indeed,
the Chesapeake Bay Program serves as a model across the country and
around the world.
When the Bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in
water quality and living resources in the 1970s, the people in my state
suffered. We lost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry. We lost
much of the wilderness that defined the watershed. We began to
appreciate for the first time the profound impact that human activity
could have on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. We began to recognize that
untreated sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, agricultural runoff,
and increased development were causing a degradation of water quality,
the loss of wildlife, and elimination of vital habitat. We also began
to recognize that these negative impacts were only part of a cycle that
could eventually impact other economic and human health interests.
Fortunately, over the last two decades we have come to understand
that humans can also have a positive effect on the environment. We have
learned that we can, if we are committed, help repair natural systems
so that they continue to provide economic opportunities and enhance the
quality of life for future generations.
We now treat sewage before it enters our waters. We banned toxic
chemicals that were killing wildlife. We have initiated programs to
reduce nonpoint source pollution, and we have taken aggressive steps to
restore depleted fisheries.
The States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania deserve much of
the credit for undertaking many of the actions that have put the Bay
and its watershed on the road to recovery. All three States have had
major cleanup programs. They have made significant commitments in terms
of resources. It is an important priority item on the agendas of the
Bay States. Governors have been strongly committed, as have State
legislatures and the public. There are a number of private
organizations--the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example--which do
extraordinary good work in this area.
But there has been invaluable involvement by the Federal Government
as well. The cooperation and attention of Federal agencies has been
essential. Without the Federal Clean Water Act, the Federal ban on DDT,
and EPA's watershed-wide coordination of Chesapeake Bay restoration and
cleanup activities, we would not have been able to
[[Page 3348]]
bring about the concerted effort, the real partnership, that is
succeeding improving the water quality of the Bay and is succeeding in
bringing back many of the fish and wildlife species.
The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot afford to be
complacent. There are still tremendous stresses on the Bay. This is a
fast-growing area of the country, with an ever increasing population,
development, and continuous changes in land use.
We need to remain vigilant in continuing to address the needs of the
Bay restoration effort. The hard work, investment, and commitment, at
all levels, which has brought gains over the last three decades, must
not be allowed to lapse or falter.
The measure I am introducing today reauthorizes the Bay program and
builds upon the Federal Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay
Program and the highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to
which I made reference. The bill also establishes simple agency
disclosure and budget coordination mechanisms to help ensure that
information about Federal Bay-related grants and projects are readily
available to the scientific community and the public.
As I mentioned before, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a model of
efficient and effective coordination. Still, there is always room for
improvement as experience informs and enlightens our judgments. While
coordination between the various levels of government has been
exemplary, coordination among Federal agencies can be strengthened.
This legislation begins to develop a better coordination mechanism to
help ensure that all Federal agency programs are accounted for.
In addition, this bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency
to establish a ``Small Watershed Grants Program'' for the Chesapeake
Bay region. These grants will help organizations and local governments
launch a variety of locally-designed and locally-implemented projects
to restore relatively small pieces of the larger Chesapeake Bay
watershed. By empowering local agencies and community groups to
identify and solve local problems, this grant program will promote
stewardship across the region and improve the whole by strengthening
the parts.
This bill was carefully crafted with the advise, counsel, and
assistance of many hard working organizations in the Chesapeake Bay
region, including the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and various offices
within the state governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
Mr. President, it is the hope of the cosponsors that this bill will
ultimately be incorporated into a larger piece of legislation that is
due to be reauthorized or considered this year. However, if such
legislation is not considered or should become stalled in the
legislative process--the larger legislation covers a wide range of
issues--it is our intention to try to move forward with this
legislation separately.
The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort has been a major bipartisan
undertaking in this body. It has consistently, over the years, been
strongly supported by virtually all members of the Senate. I strongly
urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this legislation and
contributing to the improvement and the enhancement of one of our
Nation's most valuable and treasued natural resources.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the
bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support of the bill
be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 492
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a
resource of worldwide significance;
(2) over many years, the productivity and water quality of
the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed were diminished by
pollution, excessive sedimentation, shoreline erosion, the
impacts of population growth and development in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other factors;
(3) the Federal Government (acting through the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), the
Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the Chairperson of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, as
Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories, have committed to a
comprehensive cooperative program to achieve improved water
quality and improvements in the productivity of living
resources of the Bay;
(4) the cooperative program described in paragraph (3)
serves as a national and international model for the
management of estuaries; and
(5) there is a need to expand Federal support for
monitoring, management, and restoration activities in the
Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay in order to
meet and further the original and subsequent goals and
commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore
and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and
(2) to achieve the goals established in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by
striking section 117 (33 U.S.C. 1267) and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost'
means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in
administering a grant under this section.
``(2) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
``(3) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed.
``(4) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
``(5) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake
Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
``(6) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory
jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the
Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Program office.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the
Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall
provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research,
modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and
other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
``(ii) developing and making available, through
publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate
means, information pertaining to the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local authorities, assisting the signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing
specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of
the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local
authorities in developing strategies to--
``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of
the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(v) implementing outreach programs for public
information, education, and participation to foster
stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry
out this section.
``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
[[Page 3349]]
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical
assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit
organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies to carry out this
section, subject to such terms and conditions as the
Administrator considers appropriate.
``(2) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under
paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in
accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
``(B) Small watershed grants program.--The Federal share of
an assistance grant provided under paragraph (1) to carry out
an implementing activity under subsection (g)(2) shall not
exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, as determined by
the Administrator.
``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under
paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project
costs, as determined by the Administrator.
``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
``(1) In general.--If a signatory jurisdiction has approved
and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects
of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, on the request of the chief
executive of the jurisdiction, the Administrator--
``(A) shall make a grant to the jurisdiction for the
purpose of implementing the management mechanisms established
under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate;
``(B) may make a grant to a signatory jurisdiction for the
purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(2) Proposals.--
``(A) In general.--A signatory jurisdiction described in
paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for
a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement management mechanisms
established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(B) Contents.--A proposal under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
``(i) a description of proposed management mechanisms that
the jurisdiction commits to take within a specified time
period, such as reducing or preventing pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed or meeting applicable water
quality standards or established goals and objectives under
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(ii) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be
taken during the fiscal year.
``(3) Approval.--If the Administrator finds that the
proposal is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
the national goals established under section 101(a), the
Administrator may approve the proposal for an award.
``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of an
implementation grant under this subsection shall not exceed
50 percent of the cost of implementing the management
mechanisms during the fiscal year.
``(5) Non-federal share.--An implementation grant under
this subsection shall be made on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of the costs of
implementing the management mechanisms during the fiscal
year.
``(6) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(7) Reporting.--On or before October 1 of each fiscal
year, the Administrator shall make available to the public a
document that lists and describes, in the greatest
practicable degree of detail--
``(A) all projects and activities funded for the fiscal
year;
``(B) the goals and objectives of projects funded for the
previous fiscal year; and
``(C) the net benefits of projects funded for previous
fiscal years.
``(f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal
agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the
Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall
participate in regional and subwatershed planning and
restoration programs.
``(2) Compliance with agreement.--The head of each Federal
agency that owns or occupies real property in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, and actions
taken by the agency with respect to the property, comply with
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Federal Agencies Chesapeake
Ecosystem Unified Plan, and any subsequent agreements and
plans.
``(3) Budget coordination.--
``(A) In general.--As part of the annual budget submission
of each Federal agency with projects or grants related to
restoration, planning, monitoring, or scientific
investigation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the head of
the agency shall submit to the President a report that
describes plans for the expenditure of the funds under this
section.
``(B) Disclosure to the council.--The head of each agency
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall disclose the report
under that subparagraph with the Chesapeake Executive Council
as appropriate.
``(g) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in
coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and
implementation is begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement to achieve and maintain--
``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed;
``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore
living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and
Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input
of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to
levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on
the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on
human health;
``(D) habitat restoration, protection, and enhancement
goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories for
wetlands, riparian forests, and other types of habitat
associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(E) the restoration, protection, and enhancement goals
established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories for
living resources associated with the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem.
``(2) Small watershed grants program.--The Administrator,
in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall--
``(A) establish a small watershed grants program as part of
the Chesapeake Bay Program; and
``(B) offer technical assistance and assistance grants
under subsection (d) to local governments and nonprofit
organizations and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to
implement--
``(i) cooperative tributary basin strategies that address
the water quality and living resource needs in the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem; and
``(ii) locally based protection and restoration programs or
projects within a watershed that complement the tributary
basin strategies.
``(h) Study of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than April 22, 2000, and every
5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in coordination with
the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall complete a study and
submit to Congress a comprehensive report on the results of
the study.
``(2) Requirements.--The study and report shall--
``(A) assess the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(B) assess the appropriateness of commitments and goals
of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the management strategies
established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement for improving
the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(C) assess the effectiveness of management strategies
being implemented on the date of enactment of this section
and the extent to which the priority needs are being met;
``(D) make recommendations for the improved management of
the Chesapeake Bay Program either by strengthening strategies
being implemented on the date of enactment of this section or
by adopting new strategies; and
``(E) be presented in such a format as to be readily
transferable to and usable by other watershed restoration
programs.
``(i) Special Study of Living Resource Response.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
commence a 5-year special study with full participation of
the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay to establish
and expand understanding of the response of the living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to improvements in
water quality that have resulted from investments made
through the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
``(A) determine the current status and trends of living
resources, including grasses, benthos, phytoplankton,
zooplankton, fish, and shellfish;
``(B) establish to the extent practicable the rates of
recovery of the living resources in response to improved
water quality condition;
``(C) evaluate and assess interactions of species, with
particular attention to the impact of changes within and
among trophic levels; and
``(D) recommend management actions to optimize the return
of a healthy and balanced ecosystem in response to
improvements in the quality and character of the waters of
the Chesapeake Bay.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.''.
[[Page 3350]]
____
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999--Sectional Summary
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This section establishes the title of the bill as the
``Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999.''
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
This section states that the purpose of the Act is to
expand and strengthen the cooperative efforts to restore and
protect the Chesapeake Bay and to achieve the goals embodied
in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
SECTION 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
(a) Definitions
This section defines the terms ``Administrative Cost,''
``Chesapeake Bay Agreement,'' ``Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem,''
``Chesapeake Bay Program,'' ``Chesapeake Executive Council,''
and ``Signatory Jurisdiction.''
(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program
This section provides authority for EPA to continue to lead
and coordinate the Chesapeake Bay Program, in coordination
with other members of the Chesapeake Executive Council, and
to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office is required to provide
support to the Chesapeake Executive Council for implementing
and coordinating science, research, modeling, monitoring and
other efforts that support the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The section requires the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, in
cooperation with Federal, State and local authorities, to
assist Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories in developing
specific action plans, outreach efforts and system-wide
monitoring, assessment and public participation to improve
the water quality and living resources of the Bay.
(c) Interagency Agreements
This section authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to
enter into interagency agreements with other Federal agencies
to carry out the purposes and activities of the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office.
(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants
This section authorizes the EPA Administrator to provide
technical assistance and assistance grants to nonprofit
private organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies.
(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants
The section authorizes the EPA to issue grants to signatory
jurisdictions for the purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem.
The section establishes criteria for proposals and
establishes limits on administrative costs (no more than 10%
of grant amount) and the allowable ``Federal Share'' (no more
than 50% of total project cost).
The EPA Administrator is required to produce a public
document each year that describes all projects funded under
this section.
(f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination
The Section requires Federal agencies that own or operate a
facility within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to participate
in regional and subwatershed planning and restoration
programs, and to ensure that federally owned facilities are
in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The section establishes a mechanism for budget coordination
to ensure efficiency across government programs.
(f) Chesapeake Bay Program
This section directs the Administrator, in consultation
with other members of the Executive Council, to ensure that
management plans are developed and implementation is begun by
signatory jurisdictions to achieve and maintain: the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement goals for reducing and capping
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem Bay; water
quality requirements needed to restore living resources in
the bay mainstem and tributaries; the Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxins Reduction and Prevention Strategy goals; and
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement habitat restoration, protection,
and enhancement goals are achieved.
This section also authorizes the EPA Administrator, in
consultation with other members of the Executive Council, to
offer the technical assistance and financial grants
assistance grants to local governments, nonprofit
organizations, colleges, and universities to implement
locally-based watershed protection and restoration programs
or projects that complement the Chesapeake Bay tributary
basin strategy.
(h) Study of the Chesapeake Bay Program
This section requires the Administrator and other members
of the executive Council to study and evaluate the
effectiveness the Chesapeake Bay program management
strategies and to periodically (every 5 years) submit a
comprehensive report to Congress.
(i) Special Study of Living Resources Response
The section requires the EPA Administrator to conduct a
five-year study of the Chesapeake Bay and report to Congress
on the status of its living resources and to make
recommendations on management actions that may be necessary
to ensure the continued recovery of the Chesapeake Bay and
its ecosystem.
(j) Authorization Of Appropriations
The section authorizes appropriations to the Environmental
Protection Agency of $30,000,000 for each fiscal year from
2000 through and including 2005.
____
State of Maryland,
Office of the Governor,
February 23, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Paul: Thank you for your continuing to support
environmental initiatives that benefit Maryland citizens. You
have long been a champion of our great Chesapeake Bay, and an
outstanding advocate for the protection and restoration of
all our State's natural treasures. Your current proposed
legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to assist in restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is just
another example of how you have been able to translate your
concern into action. The work you have facilitated through
the Chesapeake Bay Program has been an outstanding example of
interstate cooperation and progressive environmental programs
that have been invaluable to Maryland and Bay restoration.
If we are to be successful in the next century, we must
look ahead and be ready to face new challenges as well as
continue to meet the old ones. Your proposed legislation
embodies that vision and therefore has my full support. Its
content demonstrates your understanding of the needs of
Maryland and the other states in the watershed. It also
recognizes the critical role played by local governments and
citizen groups. The legislation clearly moves the Bay cleanup
in the direction needed. In addition to my personal support,
the bill has been reviewed by the Maryland Bay Cabinet and
received its endorsement as well. We are all eager to see the
legislation move forward and would be happy to assist you.
Thank you again for taking this initiative. Should you
require our assistance, you may contact John Griffin,
Secretary, Department of Natural Resources at (410) 260-8101.
Sincerely,
Parris N. Glendening,
Governor.
____
Commonwealth of Virginia
Office of the Governor,
February 23, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Commonwealth of Virginia
supports the language of the proposed Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act, as shown in the attached copy dated February
8, 1999.
The cooperative Chesapeake Bay Program has been and will
continue to be essential to the restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay system. Reauthorization will strengthen an already
successful Program and help support an increased level of
effort.
The proposed increase in Federal support is already more
than matched by state monies put into the recently created
Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund. Since its creation
in 1997 the Virginia General Assembly approves Governor
Gilmore's current legislative initiative, it will appropriate
an additional $45.15 million for 1999.
We thank you for being the sponsor of this bill, and we
will assist in whatever way is appropriate to help ensure its
passage by Congress.
Very truly yours,
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
____
Citizens Advisory Committee to
the Chesapeake Executive Council,
February 22, 1999.
Senator Paul Sarbanes,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the Citizens Advisory
Committee to the Chesapeake Executive Council (CAC), I would
like to express our appreciation for your leadership in
developing the draft Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act.
Provisions such as those embodied in this proposed
legislation are vital to building upon one of the most
successful partnerships ever assembled, involving every level
of government and the private sector, to restore the health
of an entire ecosystem.
The Citizens Advisory Committee was created by the
Chesapeake Executive Council to represent residents and
stakeholders of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the Bay
restoration efforts. By serving as a link with stakeholder
communities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the
District of Columbia, CAC provides a non-governmental
perspective on the Bay cleanup effort and on how Bay Program
policies affect citizens who live and work in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
The successes of the past twelve years in restoring the
health of the Bay are a direct result of hard work, funding,
and the dedicated commitment of the partners. Each and every
one of these factors is essential to continue fulfilling the
long-term restoration goals, particularly as the Bay Program
partners embrace a renewed Bay agreement in the next year.
Reauthorization and enhancement of Bay Program legislation
will signal to the states, local governments and citizens
that the Congress and the federal government will continue to
be a strong partner
[[Page 3351]]
with them as they renew their commitment to these goals and
to a cleaner, healthier Chesapeake Bay. I am particularly
encouraged by the provisions to continue the Small Watershed
Grant program which provides a mechanism for local groups and
governments to take an active, hands-on role in the Bay
restoration activities.
The members of CAC look forward to working with you and the
other members of Congressional delegations from the Bay
Program jurisdictions toward successful passage of this
legislation. Again, thank you for your leadership. Please
feel free to call upon CAC if there is any assistance that we
can provide.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Loftus,
Chair.
____
Chesapeake Bay Commission,
Annapolis, MD, February 19, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing, in my new capacity as
Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, to commend you for
your endeavors to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program
through the introduction of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Act of 1999. The Commission strongly supports this
legislation. We commit to you our resources and expertise in
working to secure its passage.
We believe that the cooperation of government at the
federal, state and local level is, and will continue to be,
essential to protecting and restoring the Bay. Your bill
helps to establish the blueprint and financial support for
that collaboration.
We strongly support the small watershed provisions of the
bill. The health of the Bay depends on the cumulative effect
of thousands of daily decisions that either compromise or
improve water quality in our subwatersheds. Offering
community groups financial support and direct access to the
tremendous informational resources of the Chesapeake Bay
Program can only help them to make environmentally-sound
decisions.
We would also like to commend you for pursuing improved
coordination of federal agency budgets. One of the great
hallmarks of the Program is EPA's close coordination with the
states in its expenditure of Bay Program monies. The Act
calls for each federal agency with projects related to the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to submit a plan detailing how the
expenditure of these funds will proceed. This enhanced
communication can only help to avoid unnecessary duplication
and cultivate cooperation among our federal partners.
Finally, we are encouraged by your inclusion of a special
study to better relate the health of our living resources to
water quality improvements. Establishing better linkages will
improve the public's support of restoration efforts.
Again and again you have proven yourself to be a tremendous
leader for the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. We hope
that this legislation, with your support, will be enacted by
the 106th Congress.
With gratitude, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Arthur D. Hershey,
Chairman.
____
Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Advisory Committee,
Easton, MD, February 17, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: The Chesapeake Bay Local Government
Advisory Committee supports all efforts to sustain and
enhance Chesapeake Bay Program activities through renewal of
Federal legislation in the ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act
of 1999.''
To date, the Chesapeake Bay Program has made great strides
in solidifying multijurisdictional efforts to improve the
condition of watershed resources in and around the Bay. It
has magnified the importance of continued efforts to enhance
water quality and to restore the living resources native to
the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program has elevated the role and
importance of local governments participating not only in the
Bay Program, but in completing watershed restoration projects
in their own jurisdiction.
On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory
Committee, I thank you for your continuing leadership and
commitment to the Bay Restoration effort. If there is any way
that the Committee or its staff can assist you, please don't
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Russ Pettyjohn,
Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory
Committee.
Lititz Borough,
Mayor, Pennsylvania.
____
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
February 25, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the board of directors
of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, I am writing to you
to express our support for your efforts to draft new
legislation to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Your leadership has been vital over the years in keeping
congressional attention focused on the work being conducted
in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania to restore the Bay.
There is ample evidence that the unique collaborative effort
which was formalized in the 1987 amendment to the Clean Water
Act is producing positive results for the Bay. It is also
apparent that there is much left to do. The bill you have
drafted adds some significant features to the Bay Program;
the increase in the authorization level to $30 million will
substantially enhance the ability of the Bay partners to meet
the needs of the Bay in the next decade.
We are conveying our support for the reauthorization of the
Bay Program to other members of Congress from the Bay states
in the hope that all will join as co-sponsors.
Again, thank you for your vigilance and your vision with
regard to the Bay.
Sincerely,
John T. Kauffman,
President.
____
Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
March 3, 1999.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to express the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation's support for the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act of 1999. Although I realize that no single
piece of legislation can save the Chesapeake Bay, I believe
this bill will help push the Bay Program towards an increased
effort to carrying out the commitments made by the
signatories.
I am particularly glad to see the section enhancing the
oversight and reporting responsibilities of the Environmental
Protection Agency. CBF has long felt that it is important for
the Environmental Protection Agency to take a stronger
leadership role in assuring that the participants are held
accountable for their commitments.
I am also enthusiastic about the provisions providing for a
small watershed grant program. Restoration of the Bay's
essential habitat--its forests, wetlands, oysters, and
underwater grass beds--is a critical component of the effort
to save the Bay, and this legislation should help move that
effort forward.
In summary, this legislation provides a step forward for
the Bay Program, and will help steer it in the right
direction. I would like to thank you and your cosponsors for
your efforts on behalf of this legislation and on behalf of
the Chesapeake Bay.
Very truly yours,
William C. Baker,
President.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Edwards):
S. 493. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, to evaluate, develop, and implement pilot
projects in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to address problems
associated with toxic microorganisms in tidal and non-tidal wetlands
and waters; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
TOXIC MICROORGANISMS ABATEMENT PILOT PROJECT ACT
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last Thursday's Baltimore Sun reported
that Pfiesteria, a sometimes toxic microorganism, has been found in
five more Maryland rivers. The article explained that new research is
proving what scientists have suspected since serious outbreaks of toxic
Pfiesteria first occurred in 1997--namely that Pfiesteria exists in a
wide area. While the organism isn't always toxic, the fact that it has
been found in a wide area coupled with the fact that it has proved
injurious in the past, strongly supports the assertion that Pfiesteria
poses a potential threat to the economic well-being of thousands of
businesses in the fishing, recreation, and tourism industries along the
east coast.
In 1997, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina suffered from several
separate incidents that involved fish behaving in an erratic manner, a
large number of fish with lesions, and fish kills. State and outside
scientists concluded that Pfiesteria was the most likely cause of the
problem. In Maryland, the fishing industry alone, lost millions of
dollars in revenue.
In 1998, the magnitude of reported Pfiesteria outbreaks was
considerably less, however, we cannot become complacent. The report in
the Baltimore
[[Page 3352]]
Sun confirms that the 1997 Pfiesteria outbreaks may not have been a
one-time phenomenon. We must begin to safeguard the economy, both
regional and national, from the impacts of Pfiesteria.
Today, I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski,
and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards in introducing a
bill, entitled the Toxic Microorganism Abatement Pilot Project Act,
which would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to begin developing
tools and techniques to abate the flow of nutrients into our waters and
thereby prevent or at least minimize the effects of future toxic
Pfiesteria outbreaks.
In 1997, the Administration directed that an interagency research and
monitoring strategy be developed in response to the outbreaks of
Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Several Federal agencies participated
in the development of this strategy including the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control, and the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Funding to implement the plan
was included in the fiscal 1998 and 1999 budgets. Unfortunately, the
key federal agency with expertise in habitat maintenance, water
resources and engineering principles--the Army Corps of Engineers--was
not included in the interagency task force and the agency's unique
qualifications were not integrated into the strategic plan. While
research into the exact causes of toxic Pfiesteria blooms is
imperative, it is just as important that we take early, aggressive, and
concrete steps to prevent such blooms if we can.
This bill is designed to ensure that all available expertise is
brought to bear in combating these biotoxins. The legislation would
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an evaluation and to
engage in pilot projects to develop tools and techniques for combating
Pfiesteria and other toxic microorganisms. At the end of each pilot
project, the Army Corps of Engineers will be required to submit a
report to Congress that describes the project, its success, and the
general applicability of the methods used in the project.
Because of its expertise in construction and watershed management,
the Army Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in responding to
the threats posed by toxic microorganisms. This legislation provides
the funding and authority for the agency to do so.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a copy of the
Baltimore Sun article be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 493
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 ``Toxic Microorganism
Abatement Pilot Project Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) effective protection of tidal and nontidal wetlands and
waters of the United States is essential to sustain and
protect ecosystems, as well as recreational, subsistence, and
economic activities dependent on those ecosystems;
(2) the effects of increasing occurrences of toxic
microorganism outbreaks can adversely affect those ecosystems
and their dependent activities;
(3) the Corps of Engineers is uniquely qualified to develop
and implement engineering solutions to abate the flow of
nutrients;
(4) because nutrient flow abatement is a new challenge, it
is desirable to have the Corps of Engineers conduct a series
of pilot projects to test technologies and refine techniques
appropriate to nutrient flow abatement; and
(5) since the States of Maryland, North Carolina, and
Virginia have recently experienced serious outbreaks of
waterborne microorganisms and there is a large store of
scientific data about outbreaks in those States, pilot
projects in those States can be effectively evaluated.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means Maryland, North
Carolina, and Virginia.
(3) Toxic microorganism.--The term ``toxic microorganism''
means Pfiesteria piscicida and any other potentially harmful
aquatic dinoflagellate.
SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC HABITAT REMEDIATION.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall evaluate, develop,
and implement a pilot project in each State (on a watershed
basis) to address and control problems associated with the
degradation of ecosystems and their dependent activities
resulting from toxic microorganisms in tidal and nontidal
wetlands and waters.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the completion of
the pilot project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report describing--
(1) the pilot project; and
(2) the findings of the pilot project, including a
description of the relationship between the findings and the
applications of the tools and techniques developed under the
pilot project.
(c) Federal and Non-Federal Shares.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project
under subsection (a) shall be 75 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project
under subsection (a) shall be provided in the form of--
(A) cash;
(B) in-kind services;
(C) materials; or
(D) the value of--
(i) land;
(ii) easements;
(iii) rights-of-way; or
(iv) relocations.
(d) Local Cooperation Agreements.--Subject to subsection
(c), in carrying out this section, the Secretary shall enter
into local cooperation agreements with non-Federal entities
under which the Secretary shall provide financial assistance
to implement actions taken to carry out pilot projects under
this section.
(e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section in cooperation with--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(3) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(4) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration;
(5) the heads of other appropriate Federal, State, and
local government agencies; and
(6) affected local landowners, businesses, and commercial
entities.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
____
[From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 25, 1999]
Pfiesteria Found in 5 Md. Rivers--Presence Widespread in Rivers,
Streams But Not Always Harmful
no ``one-time phenomenon''
toxic microorganism detected for first time in Ocean City area
(By Heather Dewar)
New research is proving what scientists long suspected:
that the toxic microorganism Pfiesteria piscicida lives in
many Maryland rivers and streams, even though it doesn't
always kill fish or make people sick.
Pfiesteria expert Dr. JoAnn Burkholder has found the
dangerous dinoflagellates in samples taken from the bottom
muck of five Maryland waterways, including two where it had
not been found before. One of those waterways, the St. Martin
River, flows into the state's coastal bays west of Ocean
City.
It was the first time the toxic microorganism had turned up
in a river that flows toward the Atlantic Coast tourist
mecca, though it has not caused any known fish kills or human
illnesses there, said David Goshorn of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.
``We have suspected all along that Pfiesteria is pretty
widespread,'' Goshorn said, ``and what she has done is to
confirm our suspicion.''
A spokesman for the Maryland Coastal Bays Program said the
finding of Pfiesteria cells in local waters was ``not
surprising, but it is worrisome at the very least.''
``My guess is that Pfiesteria being there, as long as it
isn't toxic in the real world, is not that harmful,'' said
Dave Wilson Jr., a spokesman for the coastal bays
conservation effort. ``Hopefully, people will understand that
Pfiesteria is not running rampant in the coastal bays, but it
does have the potential to do so.''
The aquatic organism has been found in coastal waters from
New Jersey to Georgia, but it causes fish kills or human
illnesses only when conditions are just right or just wrong,
Burkholder said.
Pfiesteria ``is probably all over the bay,'' said
Burkholder, who presented preliminary findings to Maryland
officials at a two-day scientific meeting of Pfiesteria
experts near Baltimore-Washington International Airport
yesterday. ``It's just that most of the time it's going to be
pretty benign.''
weather as a factor
Experts say Pfiesteria seems most likely to multiply,
attack fish and sicken people in
[[Page 3353]]
warm, shallow, still waters that are a mix of fresh and salt,
are rich in nutrients--like the pollutants that come from
human sewage, animal manure or farm fertilizer--and also rich
in fish, especially oily fish like menhaden. Weather also
plays a role, but scientists aren't certain what it is.
Maryland experts think unusual weather patterns, combined
with high nutrient levels, helped trigger significant
Pfiesteria outbreaks in the Pocomoke River and two other
Eastern Shore waterways in 1997. The three waterways were
closed, and 13 people were diagnosed with memory loss and
confusion after being on the water during the outbreaks.
Researchers think a different set of weather quirks helped
limit Pfiesteria to three small incidents last year, none of
which killed fish or caused confirmed cases of human illness.
A spokesman for Gov. Parris N. Glendening, who pushed for
controversial controls on farm runoff after the 1997
incidents, said Burkholder's latest findings show that action
was justified.
``What they point to is that this is not a one-time
phenomenon,'' said Ray Feldmann of the governor's office.
``We cannot take a bury-our-heads-in-the-sand approach to the
phenomenon we saw in the summer of 1997. We still need to be
concerned about this.
``We're encouraged that we've got a plan in place that has
the potential for helping to hold off future outbreaks.''
Burkholder, a North Carolina State University researcher
who helped discover Pfiesteria in the late 1980s, said
Maryland waters do not seem to be as prone to toxic outbreaks
as the waters of North Carolina, which has experienced 88
Pfresteria-related fish kills in the past eight years.
The latest finding ``tells me that Chesapeake Bay is not
ideal for toxic Pfiesteria, but you have the potential to go
a lot more toxic unless you take appropriate precautions,''
Burkholder said. ``Do you want to be a center for toxic
outbreaks, or do you not?''
The preliminary results are part of a study for the DNR,
which is trying to map the extent of Pfiesteria in Maryland
waters.
In October and November, when the dinoflagellate is usually
burrowed into bottom mud, DNR workers took 100 sediment
samples from 12 rivers. They were the Patuxent and Potomac on
the Western Shore; the Chester, Choptank, Chicamacomico,
Nanticoke, Wicomico, Manokin, Big Annemessex and Pocomoke,
all flowing into the Chesapeake Bay on the Eastern Shore; and
the St. Martin, which flows into Assawoman Bay near Ocean
City, and Trappe Creek, which enters Chincoteague Bay near
Assateague Island National Seashore.
In the first 30 samples, Burkholder found Pfiesteria
piscicida in concentrations high enough to kill fish in the
Big Annemessex, Chicamacomico, Pocomoke, and St. Martin. She
found the same organism on the Wicomico, but the cells did
not kill fish in her laboratory. In Trappe Creek, she found a
dinoflagellate that did not kill fish and has not been
identified.
Burkholder and other experts stressed that there have been
no recent fish kills or signs that people have gotten sick at
the sites where DNR workers took the Pfiesteria-infested
samples in October and November.
The Patuxent, Potomac, Chester and Choptank turned up no
traces of Pfiesteria, but Burkholder said she has about 70
more sediment samples waiting to be analyzed, and expects to
find signs of the microorganism in at least some of them.
rhode river discovery
Another marine scientist discovered Pfiesteria almost by
accident in the Rhode River south of Annapolis this fall.
Park Roblee of the University of North Carolina has
developed a test that can spot Pfiesteria in the water, but
he cannot tell whether the organism is in its toxic stage. He
told scientists at this week's meeting that he got samples
from the Rhode River expecting them to be Pfiesteria-free but
to his surprise they came up positive. Again, there were no
signs of a fish kill in the area.
Roblee said workers from his laboratory traveled the coast
from New Jersey to Florida, taking water samples ``basically
wherever I-95 crossed a river or stream that flowed into an
estuary.'' The samples showed signs of Pfiesteria at eight
out of 100 sites, he said.
In other findings reported yesterday, University of
Maryland researcher David Oldach said no signs of serious
illness were found in 1998, the first year of a five-year
study of people who might come in contact with Pfiesteria.
Oldach said 90 Eastern Shore watermen and 25 people who don't
work near the water have volunteered for the study and
undergone testing.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Roth, Mr. Moynihan,
Mr. Chafee, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Mack, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Kerrey,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Robb):
S. 494. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
prohibit transfers or discharges of residents of nursing facilities as
a result of a voluntary withdrawal from participation in the Medicaid
program; to the Committee on Finance.
nursing home resident protection amendments of 1999
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
commend Senator Grassley, Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their
bipartisan commitment to protect our nation's seniors from
indiscriminate dumping by their nursing homes. I would like to request
that their statements be added to the Record.
The Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 has the support of
the nursing home industry and senior citizen advocates. It is with
their support that we encourage the Senate to take action on this
important piece of legislation. I also have letters of support from the
American Health Care Association, the National Seniors Law Center, and
the American Association for Retired Persons which I will include in
the Record.
Mr. President, last year, it looked like 93-year-old Adela Mongiovi
might have to spend her 61st Mother's Day away from the assisted living
facility that she had called home for the last four years. Her son
Nelson and daughter-in-law Geri feared that they would have to move
Adela when officials at the Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center of
Tampa told them that their Alzheimer's Disease-afflicted mother would
have to be relocated so that the nursing home could complete
``renovations.''
As the Mongiovis told me when I met with them and visited their
mother in Tampa last April, the real story far exceeded their worst
fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent
eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by
the Medicaid program. Ms. Mongiovi passed away during the holiday
season and I send my heartfelt condolences to her family.
The nursing home chain which owns the Tampa facility and several
others across the United States wanted to purge its nursing homes of
Medicaid residents, ostensibly to take more private insurance payers
and Medicare beneficiaries which pay more per resident.
This may have been a good financial decision in the short run,
however, its effects on our nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a
widespread basis, would be even more disastrous.
In an April 7, 1998, Wall Street Journal article, several nursing
home executives argued that state governments and Congress are to blame
for these evictions because they have set Medicaid reimbursements too
low. While Medicaid payments to nursing homes may need to be revised,
playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way
to send that message to Congress. And while I am willing to engage in a
discussion as to the equity of nursing home reimbursement rates, my
colleagues and I are not willing to allow nursing home facilities to
dump patients indiscriminately.
The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice
elderly Americans for the sake of their bottom-line is bad enough. What
is even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions.
The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in
the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law
allows nursing homes to discharge patients for inability to pay.
If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, state and
federal governments are no longer allowed to pay the affected
residents' bills. They can then be conveniently and unceremoniously
dumped for--you guessed it--their inability to pay.
Nursing home evictions have a devastating effect on the health and
well-being of some of society's most vulnerable members. A recent
University of Southern California study indicated that those who are
uprooted from their homes undergo a phenomenon knows as ``transfer
trauma.'' For these seniors, the consequences are stark. The death rate
among these seniors is two to three times higher than that for
individuals who receive continuous care.
[[Page 3354]]
Those of us who believe that our mothers, fathers, and grandparents
are safe because Medicaid affects only low-income Americans need to
think again. A three year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of
$125,000. As a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who
enter as privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and
lose health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many
retirees' last refuge of financial support.
On April 19, 1998, the Florida Medicaid Bureau responded to evidence
of Medicaid dumping in Tampa by levying a steep $260,000 fine against
the Tampa nursing home. That was a strong and appropriate action, but
it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared
responsibility of states and the federal government.
While the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid
dumping is not just a Florida problem. Nursing homes which were once
locally-run and family-owned are increasingly administered by multi-
state, multi-facility corporations that have the power to affect
seniors across the United States.
Mr. President, let me also point out that the large majority of
nursing homes in America treat residents well and are responsible
community citizens. Our bill is simple and fair and designed to prevent
future abuses by bad actors. It would prohibit current Medicaid
beneficiaries or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being
evicted from their homes.
Adele Mongiovi was not just a ``beneficiary.'' She was also a mother
and grandmother. To Ms. Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care
Center of Tampa was not just an ``assisted living facility''--it was
her home.
Mr. President, let us provide security and peace of mind for all of
our nation's seniors and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Health Care Association,
Washington, DC, February 3, 1999.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to lend the support of
the American Health Care Association to the Nursing Home
Protection Amendments of 1999, which you introduced as S.
2308 last year and plan to reintroduce this year. This
legislation helps to ensure a secure environment for
residents of nursing facilities which withdraw from the
Medicaid program.
We know firsthand that a nursing facility is one's home,
and we strive to make sure resident are healthy and secure in
their home. We strongly support the clarifications your bill
will provide to both current and future nursing facility
residents, and do not believe residents should be discharged
because of inadequacies in the Medicaid program.
The bill addresses a troubling symptom of what could be a
much larger problem. The desire to end participation in the
Medicaid program is a result of the unwillingness of some
states to adequately fund the quality of care that residents
expect and deserve. Thus, some providers may opt out of the
program to maintain a higher level of quality than is
possible when relying on inadequate Medicaid rates. Nursing
home residents should not be the victims of the inadequacies
of their state's Medicaid program.
In 1996, the Congress voted to retain all standards for
nursing facilities. We support those standards. In 1997,
Congress voted separately to eliminate requirements that
states pay for those standards. These two issues are
inextricably linked, and must be considered together. We
welcome the opportunity to have this debate as Congress moves
forward on this issue.
Again, we appreciate the chance to work with you to provide
our residents with quality care in a home-like setting that
is safe and secure. We also feel that it would be most
effective when considered in the context of the relationship
between payment and quality and access to care.
Finally, we greatly appreciate the inclusive manner in
which this legislation was crafted, and strengthened. When
the views of consumers, providers, and regulators are
considered together, the result, as with your bill, is
intelligent public policy.
We look forward to working with you to further clarify
Medicaid policy and preserve our ability to provide the best
care and security for our residents.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce Yarwood,
Legislative Counsel.
____
National Senior Citizens
Law Center,
Washington, DC, February 3, 1999.
Senator Bob Graham,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: Last spring, the Vencor Corporation
began to implement a policy of withdrawing its nursing
facilities from participation in the Medicaid program. The
abrupt, involuntary transfer of large numbers of Medicaid
residents followed. Although Vencor reversed its policy, in
light of Congressional concern, state agency action, and
adverse publicity, the situation highlighted an issue in need
of an explicit federal legislative solution--the rights of
Medicaid residents to remain in their home when their nursing
facility voluntarily ceases to participate in the federal
payment program.
I supported the legislation you introduced in the last
Congress and have read the draft bill that you will introduce
to address this issue in this session. The bill protects
residents who were admitted at a time when their facility
participated in Medicaid by prohibiting the facility from
involuntarily transferring them later when it decides to
discontinue its participation. As you know, many people in
nursing facilities begin their residency paying privately for
their care and choose the facility in part because of
promises that they can stay when they exhaust their private
funds and become eligible for Medicaid. In essence, your bill
requires the facility to honor the promises it made to these
residents at the time of their admission. It continues to
allow facilities to withdraw from the Medicaid program, but
any withdrawal is prospective only. All current residents may
remain in their home.
This bill gives peace of mind to older people and their
families by affirming that their Medicaid-participating
facility cannot abandon them if it later voluntarily chooses
to end its participation in Medicaid.
The National Senior Citizens Law Center supports this
legislation. We look forward to working with your staff on
this legislation and on other bills to protect the rights and
interests of nursing facility residents and other older
people. In particular, we suggest that you consider
legislation addressing a related issue of concern to Medicaid
beneficiaries and their families--problems of nursing
facilities' discriminatory admissions practices.
Many facilities limit the extent of their participation in
the Medicaid program by certifying only a small number of
beds for Medicaid. As a consequence of their limited
participation in the Medicaid program, they discriminate
against program beneficiaries by denying them admission. In
addition, residents who pay privately and become eligible for
Medicaid during their residency in the facility because of
the high cost of nursing facility care are also affected by
limited bed, or distinct part, certification. Once such
residents become impoverished and need to rely on Medicaid to
help pay for their care, they are often told that ``no
Medicaid beds are available'' and that they must move.
Facilities engage in other practices that discriminate
against people who need to rely on Medicaid for their care.
We would be happy to work with your staff in developing
legislative solutions to these concerns.
Thank you for your work and leadership on these important
issues.
Sincerely,
Toby S. Edelman.
____
AARP
Washington, DC, February 25, 1999.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Graham: AARP appreciates your leadership in
sponsoring the Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999,
a bill that protects low-income nursing home residents from
discharge when a nursing home withdraws from the Medicaid
program.
Across the country, some nursing home operators have been
accused of dumping Medicaid residents--among the most
defenseless of all health care patients. As with similar
complaints about hospitals and physicians, these violations
can be serious threats to people's health and safety. Yet,
federal and state governments have been limited to their
oversight and enforcement capacities. This bill would
establish clear legal authority to prevent inappropriate
discharges, even when a nursing home withdraws from the
Medicaid program. AARP believes that this is an important and
necessary step in protecting access to nursing homes for our
nation's most vulnerable citizens.
This bill offers important protections because of the
documented that Medicaid patients face, especially people
seeking nursing home care. For years, there has been strong
evidence demonstrating that people who are eligible for
Medicaid have a harder time gaining entry to a nursing home
than do private payers. In some parts of the country, there
is a shortage of nursing home beds. Under such circumstances,
only private-pay patients have real choice among nursing
homes. Medicaid patients are often forced to choose a home
that they would not have otherwise chosen, despite concerns
about its quality of care or location.
Under the proposed legislation, government survey,
certification, and enforcement
[[Page 3355]]
authority would continue, even after the facility withdraws
from the Medicaid program, and the facility would be required
to continue to comply with it. The bill also protects
prospective residents by requiring oral and written notice
that the nursing home has withdrawn from the Medicaid
program. Thus, the prospective nursing home resident would be
given notice that the home would be permitted to transfer or
discharge a new resident at such time as the resident is
unable to pay for care.
Access to quality nursing homes has been a long-standing
and serious concern for AARP. It is an issue that affects, in
a real way, our members and their families. The current
patchwork system of long-term care forces many Americans to
spend down to pay for expensive nursing home care. Therefore,
it is unfair to penalize such order, frail nursing home
residents who must rely on Medicaid at a critical time in
their lives.
Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue. If we
can be of further assistance, please give me a call or have
your staff contact Maryanne Keenan of our Federal Affairs
staff at (202) 434-3772.
Sincerely,
Horace B. Deets.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators
Graham, Roth, and Moynihan in introducing legislation that will be an
important step in safeguarding our most vulnerable citizens. The
Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 will protect nursing home
residents who are covered by Medicaid from being thrown out of a
facility to make room for a more lucrative, private-pay patient.
It is hard to believe that a facility would uproot a frail individual
for the sole purpose of a few extra dollars. However, in the past year
there have been documented cases of Medicaid beneficiaries who have
been at risk of being forced to leave a facility based solely on
reimbursement status. The result is often severe trauma and a mortality
rate that is two to three times higher than other nursing home
residents. This is no way to treat our elderly.
I want to make it clear that these situations are rare. The vast
majority of nursing homes are compassionate and decent facilities. My
state of Iowa has been privileged to have many nursing homes that stand
as models of quality care. Unfortunately, a few bad apples can damage
the reputation of an entire industry. That is why I am pleased that
this bipartisan legislation has the support of the nursing home
industry as well as senior citizens' advocates.
This commonsense proposal would prevent nursing homes who have
already accepted a Medicaid patient from evicting or transferring the
patient based solely on payment status. Nursing homes would still be
entitled to decide who gains access to their facilities, however, they
would be required to inform new residents that if they spend down to
Medicaid, they are entitled to discharge or transfer them to another
facility.
This legislation is an important step in protecting these frail
individuals. People move into nursing homes for around-the-clock health
care in a safe environment. The last thing they expect is to be put out
on the street. That's also the last thing they deserve. This bill
prevents residents from getting hurt if their nursing home pulls out of
Medicaid and ensures that people know their rights up front, before
they enter a facility.
This commonsense proposal has also been introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congressman Bilirakis where it has received strong
bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to
cosponsor this worthwhile proposal. And, I look forward to the passage
of this resolution this year.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator
Moynihan, Senator Graham, and Senator Grassley to introduce important
legislation to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens--nursing
home residents. Our bill will keep nursing home residents who rely on
Medicaid from being ``dumped'' out of the facility they call home,
should that facility decide to drop participation in the Medicaid
program.
The problem we will solve with this bill does not occur often. In
fact, nearly 90 percent of all nursing homes participate in the
Medicaid program. Pullouts are very rare and usually result from
facilities deciding to close. But when a still-functioning facility
decides to stop serving Medicaid clients, our bill will ensure that
current residents do not find themselves pushed out of the place they
view as home.
Recently, Medicaid beneficiaries in facilities in Indiana and Florida
found themselves in precisely this horrible situation. They were forced
out of nursing homes that decided to drop participation in the Medicaid
program. Residents' well-being was disrupted and families were forced
to scramble to develop other care alternatives.
Our new legislation, and H.R. 540, its companion bill in the House,
will protect current residents from displacement. The bill simply
requires that facilities withdrawing from the Medicaid program continue
to care for current residents under the terms and conditions of the
Medicaid program until those residents no longer require care.
Facilities would essentially phase-down participation in Medicaid
rather than dropping from the program overnight.
Both the nursing home industry and senior citizens' advocates support
our legislation. This is a common sense, good-government bill that will
enhance the peace of mind of low-income elderly and disabled
individuals.
I applaud the House Conference Committee for having already held a
hearing on H.R. 540, and Representatives Bilirakis and Davis are to be
congratulated for their leadership on this important issue. As we
introduce our bill in the Senate today, I would like to particularly
thank Senator Bob Graham, whose commitment to this legislation has been
pivotal. Working with him, Senator Moynihan, Senator Grassley, and
other original Finance Committee cosponsors Senators Chafee, Mack,
Rockefeller, Breaux, Bryan, and Kerrey, I look forward to taking up the
bill up in our committee.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues
Senators Graham, Roth and Grassley in introducing this legislation--the
Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999. It is a modest
modification providing an enormous protection for nursing home
residents.
The situation today is as follows. Frail elderly individuals who
require nursing home care are faced with costs of $40,000 to $50,000 on
average per year. These sums quickly deplete family savings. As a
result, about two-thirds of nursing home residents at some point spend
down their assets and require the assistance of Medicaid coverage.
Because Medicaid typically has low reimbursement rates, nursing homes,
in turn, must carefully balance their finances by screening which
patients to accept, limiting the number of Medicaid residents. When
nursing homes can no longer operate with low Medicaid rates, they may
choose to reduce the number of beds available for Medicaid residents or
no longer participate in the Medicaid program altogether.
What, then, happens to the residents who depend on Medicaid to cover
their nursing home costs? The Wall Street Journal first reported on
April 7 of last year what has occurred: Vencor Inc., with the nation's
largest nursing home chain of 310 facilities, decided to withdraw
participation in the Medicaid program. Residents covered by Medicaid
were so notified and told they would have to leave the nursing homes--
their homes.
Industry analysts had predicted that some other companies may follow
Vencor's lead in jettisoning Medicaid residents. For example,
Renaissance Healthcare Corp. withdrew from Medicaid the year before due
to rising expenses.
The evictions in Vencor's Indiana and Florida nursing homes caused
panic among residents and their families, and aggravated some patients'
frail medical conditions. In all, it was a wrenching experience for
residents and their families.
Our legislation is a small modification amid an otherwise larger
problem. The bill would merely protect current Medicaid residents in
nursing homes from evictions if their nursing home decides to withdraw
from the Medicaid program. Nursing homes will be able to continue to
screen patients for acceptance into their facility. The screening
[[Page 3356]]
process is quite sophisticated and includes collection of information
about assets and income to determine when the individual will likely
spend down his or her resources before requiring Medicaid coverage.
The larger dilemma still exists. We need a system that both covers
our frail elderly in nursing homes after they spend themselves into
poverty due to nursing home costs and ensures that nursing homes can
stay in business in order to provide such services.
Momentum is moving behind this legislation. Our bill enjoys
bipartisan support in Congress as well as support from the nursing home
industry and advocates. On the Senate side, we introduce this bill
today with a total of 15 sponsors. Last week, the House Commerce
Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing on this
legislation. Chairman Roth and I are committed to marking up this bill
in our Committee in the near future. I commend Senator Graham for his
leadership in initiating this proposal, and urge its early adoption.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 495. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the highway
sanctions; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
legislation to repeal clean air act to repeal the highway sanctions
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is simple and
clear. The only thing the bill does is to repeal the highway sanction
provisions in the Clean Air Act.
I want to start by saying that I know what the so-called
environmental community is going to say. Actually, they have already
said it. I recall a press release that said, ``Another smoggy stealth
attack is in the works,'' and ``sharpening the dirty-air knives.''
Well, that sounds fancy and exciting, but it is just flat wrong.
Mr. President, I ask you, where is the common sense? I do not want
dirty air. And I do not think anybody in this room, in this body, wants
dirty air. But any attempt to change the status quo gets some
spinmeisters at work.
Let me explain where there is a real problem. There is a provision in
the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA Administrator, with the approval
of the Secretary of Transportation, to halt highway funding for a
nonattainment area. For instance, if a State does not have an approved
clean air plan, after a certain period of time sanctions apply, and
those sanctions include halting highway funding. Now, transit funding
can continue and bike path money can go forward. There is also a
``safety'' exemption where the Secretary of Transportation determines
that a ``project is an improvement in safety to resolve a demonstrated
safety problem and likely will result in a significant reduction in, or
avoidance of, accidents.''
I have several problems with that provision.
First, highway funding is a matter of safety. We dedicate
transportation funds to specific improvement programs, like railroad
crossings and programs on drunk driving. But highway safety is also an
issue when it comes to road conditions.
In my own State of Missouri, I can tell you that highway fatality
rates are higher than the national average because roads are more
dangerous. In the period 1992 to 1996, 5,279 people died on Missouri
highways. Nationally, Federal Highways estimates that road conditions
are a factor in about 30 percent of traffic fatalities. Well, I believe
that figure is higher in Missouri, because I have been on the narrow
two-lane roads and have seen the white crosses where people have died.
Highway improvements, such as wider lanes and shoulders, adding or
improving medians, and upgrading roads from two lanes to four lanes can
reduce traffic fatalities and accidents. The Secretary can grant
exemptions from the current law to allow a project to go forward, but
he can also deny them. I have a problem with the Government, the
Federal Government, micromanaging a State's transportation plan.
The law also says the State will have to submit data to justify that
the ``principal purpose of the project is an improvement in safety.''
Tell that to the grandmother who has lost her granddaughter on a
stretch of highway. She will never go to the prom, because she was
killed on that highway.
I would argue that highway construction and improvements are almost
always a matter of safety and that to have to seek an exemption is an
unnecessary and inappropriate delay. Any further delay imposed by the
Federal Government on highway projects which are necessary for safety
is unacceptable.
Second, taking away or imposing any kind of delay on highway funding
does nothing to improve air quality or to reduce congestion. According
to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, ``Congestion damages air quality, increases travel times,
costs an estimated $43 billion annually in delays in the country's 50
largest urban areas, and generates additional delay costs in rural and
suburban areas.''
Some will argue, ``If you build it, they will come.'' That normally
applies to baseball diamonds, but they are talking about highways. I am
not denying that there is some truth to that, but congestion already
exists. They are already there. People in our State and rural Missouri
are driving, and they are driving on narrow highways because they have
to. There are no trolleys; there are no regularly scheduled buses.
Halting or delaying funds to address the problem is inappropriate.
I think the cliche, ``Pay now or pay more later,'' is appropriate.
What we would be ``paying'' for is potentially the loss of life, loss
of economic opportunities, and the loss of convenience for the
traveling public. Isn't this an issue of quality of life? I think so.
Third, the Highway Trust Fund is supported by highway users for
highway construction and maintenance. It is a dedicated tax for a
dedicated purpose. The people of Missouri are paying highway fund taxes
and not getting a full dollar back for their highways. And to take away
some of the money that they have put in because of totally unrelated
concerns is inappropriate as a punitive sanction.
The 105th Congress spent the entire Congress, almost, working on a
transportation policy.
One of the most contentious debates we had at the time and the
significant outcomes of that debate was the issue of the trust fund.
The Congress finally agreed to and the President signed into law what I
refer to as the Bond-Chafee provision which says that the money goes in
as the money comes out the next year for transportation and programs
authorized by law.
Included in TEA-21--highway dollars being spent on--is $8.1 billion
over 6 years for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program. This is money dedicated to helping States and local
governments meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Under current
law, CMAQ--as it is called--funding will continue without interruption,
but highway construction could be halted or face a delay.
Using a ``dedicated tax for a dedicated purpose'' as a hammer in this
instance is, I believe, inappropriate and unfair.
I do not view this legislation as an attack on the Clean Air Act. It
is a matter of common sense.
Some may ask, if they do not already know, what precipitated the
introduction of this legislation. I contemplated introducing this bill
in the past but had other matters that were more important. But on
November 8, 1998, the San Francisco-based Sierra Club filed suit in the
District of Columbia District Court against the EPA to force the EPA to
mandate sanctions not just on St. Louis and the nonattainment area but
on the entire State of Missouri and to make these sanctions
retroactive. That action, I believe, is irresponsible and extreme.
The EPA itself chose not to impose sanctions on the St Louis area or
the State of Missouri because the State and the nonattainment area are
doing everything that is necessary to come into compliance. The St.
Louis area has adopted an inspection/maintenance program. They have
instituted a plan to reduce volatile organic compound emissions by at
least 15 percent. They have opted into EPA's reformulated
[[Page 3357]]
gasoline program. And the St. Louis Regional Clean Air Partnership has
been formed to encourage voluntary actions. In these circumstances, the
Sierra Club lawsuit is purely punitive and purely unwarranted, but it
is possible as long as we have this legislation on the books.
I do not personally know one Member of the Senate who fought for
highway funding for his or her State's highway needs who would support
actions to take that funding away, especially in a frivolous lawsuit by
a group with a different agenda, with different priorities than the
citizens of the State who are paying in the money. If this provision of
law is left in place, what is happening in Missouri could happen
elsewhere. Highway sanctions are in place for Helena, MT, and a
situation is developing in Atlanta, GA, which has been brought to my
attention.
There are those who say you can count the number of times highway
sanctions have been imposed on one hand, but that still is too many. I
disagree with the linking of highway funds and clean air attainment. We
must address both. Quality of life requires both clear air and safe
highways. I am dedicated to both. I hope we can have hearings and move
on this measure in the near future.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 496. A bill to provide for the establishment of an assistance
program for health insurance consumers; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
the health care consumer assistance act
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care
Consumer Assistance Act, along with my colleague from Oregon, Mr.
Wyden. This legislation creates a consumer assistance program that is
key to patient protections in the health insurance market.
In 1997, President Clinton's Health Quality Commission identified the
need for consumer assistance programs that allow consumers access to
accurate, easily understood information and get assistance in making
informed decisions about health plans and providers. Today, only a
loose patchwork of consumer assistance services exists. And, while a
number of sources provide assistance, most are limited. Many consumer
groups have advocated for the establishment of consumer assistance
programs to support consumers' growing need of information.
The legislation I am introducing today gives states grants to
establish nonprofit, private health care ombudsman programs designed to
help consumers understand and act on their health care choices, rights,
and responsibilities. Under my bill, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will offer funds for states to select an independent,
nonprofit agency to provide the following services to consumers:
information relating to choices, rights, and responsibilities within
the plans they select; operate a 1-800 telephone hotline to respond to
consumer requests for information, advice and assistance; produce and
disseminate educational materials about patients' rights; provide
assistance and representation to people who wish to appeal the denial,
termination, or reduction of health care services, or a refusal to pay
for health services; and collect and disseminate data about inquiries,
problems and grievances handled by the consumer assistance program.
This program has been championed by Ron Pollack of Families USA and
Beverly Malone of the American Nurses Association, who served as
members of the President's Commission on Quality, as well as numerous
other consumer advocates.
Mr. President, I have joined with many of my Democratic colleagues in
sponsoring S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. I am pleased
that S. 6 would establish a consumer assistance program, similar to
that established by my legislation. My purpose today is to emphasize
the importance of such a consumer protection program. This legislation
is not without controversy, but I believe that American consumers
deserve protection and assistance as they attempt to navigate the often
confusing and complex world of health insurance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my bill
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 496
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 ``Health Care Consumer
Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall award
grants to States to enable such States to enter into
contracts for the establishment of consumer assistance
programs designed to assist consumers of health insurance in
understanding their rights, responsibilities and choices
among health insurance products.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including a State plan that describes--
(1) the manner in which the State will solicit proposals
for, and enter into a contract with, an entity eligible under
section 3 to serve as the health insurance consumer office
for the State; and
(2) the manner in which the State will ensure that advice
and assistance services for health insurance consumers are
coordinated through the office described in paragraph (1).
(c) Amount of Grant.--
(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 5
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award a grant to a
State in an amount that bears the same ratio to such amounts
as the number of individuals within the State covered under a
health insurance plan (as determined by the Secretary) bears
to the total number of individuals covered under a health
insurance plan in all States (as determined by the
Secretary). Any amounts provided to a State under this
section that are not used by the State shall be remitted to
the Secretary and reallocated in accordance with this
paragraph.
(2) Minimum amount.--In no case shall the amount provided
to a State under a grant under this section for a fiscal year
be less than an amount equal to .5 percent of the amount
appropriated for such fiscal year under section 5.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF STATE ENTITIES.
To be eligible to enter into a contract with a State and
operate as the health insurance consumer office for the State
under this Act, an entity shall--
(1) be an independent, nonprofit entity with demonstrated
experience in serving the needs of health care consumers
(particularly low income and other consumers who are most in
need of consumer assistance);
(2) prepare and submit to the State a proposal containing
such information as the State may require;
(3) demonstrate that the entity has the technical,
organizational, and professional capacity to operate the
health insurance consumer office within the State;
(4) provide assurances that the entity has no real or
perceived conflict of interest in providing advice and
assistance to consumers regarding health insurance and that
the entity is independent of health insurance plans,
companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care; and
(5) demonstrate that, using assistance provided by the
State, the entity has the capacity to provide assistance and
advice throughout the State to public and private health
insurance consumers regardless of the source of coverage.
SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) By State.--A State shall use amounts received under a
grant under this Act to enter into a contract described in
section 2(a) to provide funds for the establishment and
operation of a health insurance consumer office.
(b) By Entity.--
(1) In general.--An entity that enters into a contract with
a State under this Act shall use amounts received under the
contract to establish and operate a health insurance consumer
office.
(2) Noncompliance.--If the State fails to enter into a
contract under subsection (a), the Secretary shall withhold
amounts to be provided to the State under this Act and use
such amounts to enter into the contract described in
paragraph (1) for the State.
(c) Activities of Office.--A health insurance consumer
office established under this Act shall--
(1) provide information to health insurance consumers
within the State relating to choice of health insurance
products and the rights and responsibilities of consumers and
insurers under such products;
(2) operate toll-free telephone hotlines to respond to
requests for information, advice or assistance concerning
health insurance in a timely and efficient manner;
(3) produce and disseminate educational materials
concerning health insurance consumer and patient rights;
[[Page 3358]]
(4) provide assistance and representation (in nonlitigative
settings) to individuals who desire to appeal the denial,
termination, or reduction of health care services, or the
refusal to pay for such services, under a health insurance
plan;
(5) make referrals to appropriate private and public
individuals or entities so that inquiries, problems, and
grievances with respect to health insurance can be handled
promptly and efficiently; and
(6) collect data concerning inquiries, problems, and
grievances handled by the office and periodically disseminate
a compilation and analysis of such information to employers,
health plans, health insurers, regulatory agencies, and the
general public.
(d) Availability of Services.--The office shall not
discriminate in the provision of services regardless of the
source of the individual's health insurance coverage or
prospective coverage, including individuals covered under
employer-provided insurance, self-funded plans, the medicare
or medicaid programs under title XVIII or XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 and 1396 et seq.), or under any
other Federal or State health care program.
(e) Subcontracts.--An office established under this section
may carry out activities and provide services through
contracts entered into with 1 or more nonprofit entities so
long as the office can demonstrate that all of the
requirements of this Act are met by the office.
(f) Training.--
(1) In general.--An office established under this section
shall ensure that personnel employed by the office possess
the skills, expertise, and information necessary to provide
the services described in subsection (c).
(2) Contracts.--To meet the requirement of paragraph (1),
an office may enter into contracts with 1 or more nonprofit
entities for the training (both through technical and
educational assistance) of personnel and volunteers. To be
eligible to receive a contract under this paragraph, an
entity shall be independent of health insurance plans,
companies, providers, payers, and regulators of care.
(3) Limitation.--Not to exceed 7 percent of the amount
awarded to an entity under a contract under subsection (a)
for a fiscal year may be used for the provision of training
under this section.
(g) Administrative Costs.--Not to exceed 1 percent of the
amount of a block grant awarded to the State under subsection
(a) for a fiscal year may be used for administrative expenses
by the State.
(h) Term.--A contract entered into under subsection (a)
shall be for a term of 3 years.
SEC. 5. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary in each
fiscal year to carry out this Act.
(b) Report of Secretary.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report that contains--
(1) a determination by the Secretary of whether amounts
appropriated to carry out this Act for the fiscal year for
which this report is being prepared are sufficient to fully
fund this Act in such fiscal year; and
(2) with respect to a fiscal year for which the Secretary
determines under paragraph (1) that sufficient amounts are
not appropriated, the recommendations of the Secretary for
fully funding this Act through the use of additional funding
sources.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 498. A bill to require vessels entering the United States waters
to provide earlier notice of the entry, to clarify the requirements for
those vessels and the authority of the Coast Guard over those vessels,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
the coastal protection and vessel control improvement act
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we speak, rescue crews are fighting
valiantly to contain the damage from the wreck of the tanker New
Carissa off of Coos Bay, Oregon three weeks ago. But the clock is
ticking, the water is rising, and time is running short. An
environmental disaster of truly alarming proportions is staring my
state in the face.
Thousands of gallons of fuel oil have already leaked out of the
wrecked ship and thousands more may be spilled along our precious
coastline within days, if not hours.
As Oregonians struggle to make the best of a bad situation, it is not
too early to start talking about how we prevent the next addition to
the legacy of New Carissa. It seems clear to me that we need to look at
the pernicious practice of foreign flagging. How many gallons of oil
need to spill and how many miles of coastline have to be destroyed
before we stop allowing unseaworthy vessels manned by untrained crews
into our coastal waters.
It seems easier to register a supertanker in some foreign countries
than it is to register an automobile in Portland, Oregon. As long as
this so-called Flag of Convenience system continues, it's only a matter
of time before the next New Carissa runs aground on a local beach. Yet
our maritime policy continues to allow it.
Grave concerns have also been raised about the amount and quality of
information being released to the public about this disaster. People
who live in the area simply have not been told what to expect. That is
unacceptable. When disaster strikes, government has an ironclad
responsibility to give people as much information as possible.
Today, I am introducing legislation that focuses on avoiding
disasters like the New Carissa. We need to stop playing Russian
roulette with our coastal resources and the communities that depend on
them.
Congressman DeFazio has authored companion legislation in the House
of Representatives, which was adopted as an amendment to the Coast
Guard Reauthorization Bill.
This legislation requires all vessels, foreign and domestic, to
notify the Coast Guard when they intend to enter our country's
territorial waters, allows the Coast Guard to bar them from entry if
there are safety concerns, and gives the Coast Guard the authority to
direct the movements of such vessels in our waters in hazardous
situations. This bill would have given the Coast Guard the ability to
block the New Carissa from allowing its deadly course of sailing so
close to shore during a hazardous gale, a practice that local pilots
shun.
In other words, had this bill been in place, the Coast Guard would
have had the ability to stop this tragedy before it occurred, instead
of having to clean up after it.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask
unanimous consent that a copy 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. 498
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF COAST GUARD AUTHORITY TO CONTROL
VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 15. ENTRY OF VESSELS INTO TERRITORIAL SEA; DIRECTION
OF VESSELS BY COAST GUARD.
``(a) Notification of Coast Guard.--
``(1) Notification.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, a commercial vessel entering the territorial sea
of the United States shall notify the Secretary not later
than 24 hours before that entry.
``(2) Information.--The regulations under paragraph (1)
shall specify that the notification shall contain the
following information:
``(A) The name of the vessel.
``(B) The port or place of destination in the United
States.
``(C) The time of entry into the territorial sea.
``(D) With respect to the fuel oil tanks of the vessel--
``(i) the capacity of those tanks; and
``(ii) the estimated quantity of fuel oil that will be
contained in those tanks at the time of entry into the
territorial sea.
``(E) Any information requested by the Secretary to
demonstrate compliance with applicable international
agreements to which the United States is a party.
``(F) If the vessel is carrying dangerous cargo, a
description of that cargo.
``(G) A description of any hazardous conditions on the
vessel.
``(H) Any other information requested by the Secretary.
``(b) Denial of Entry.--The Secretary may deny entry of a
vessel into the territorial sea of the United States if--
``(1) the Secretary has not received notification for the
vessel in accordance with subsection (a); or
``(2) the vessel is not in compliance with any other
applicable law relating to marine safety, security, or
environmental protection.
``(c) Direction of Vessel.--The Secretary may direct the
operation of any vessel in the navigable waters of the United
States as necessary during hazardous circumstances, including
the absence of a pilot required by
[[Page 3359]]
Federal or State law, weather, casualty, vessel traffic, or
the poor condition of the vessel.''.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Levin,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 499. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative medal for
organ donors and their families; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
the gift of life congressional medal act of 1999
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I take great pleasure today in introducing
the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act of 1999. With this
legislation, which doesn't cost taxpayers a penny, Congress has the
opportunity to recognize and encourage potential donors, and give hope
to over 52,000 Americans who have end-stage disease. As a heart and
lung transplant surgeon, I saw one in four of my patients die because
of the lack of available donors. Public awareness simply has not kept
up with the relatively new science of transplantation. As public
servants, we need to do all we can to raise awareness about the gift of
life.
Under this bill, each donor or donor family will be eligible to
receive a commemorative Congressional medal. It is not expected that
all families, many of whom wish to remain anonymous, will take
advantage of this opportunity. The program will be coordinated by the
regional organ procurement organizations [OPO's] and managed by the
entity administering the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
Upon request of the family or individual, a public official will
present the medal to the donor or the family. This creates a wonderful
opportunity to honor those sharing life through donation and increase
public awareness. Some researchers have estimated that it may be
possible to increase the number of organ donations by 80 percent
through public education.
Any one of us, or any member of our families, could need a life
saving transplant. We would then be placed on a waiting list to
anxiously await our turn, or our death. The number of people on the
list has more than doubled since 1990--and a new name is added to the
list every 18 minutes. In my home State of Tennessee, 62 Tennesseans
died in 1998 while waiting, and more than 775 people are in need of a
transplant. Nationally, because of a lack of organs, close to 5,000
listed individuals died in 1998.
However, the official waiting list reflects only those who have been
lucky enough to make it into the medical care system and to pass the
financial hurdles. If you include all those reaching end-stage disease,
the number of people potentially needing organs or bone marrow, very
likely over 120,000, becomes staggering. Only a small fraction of that
number would ever receive transplants, even if they had adequate
insurance. There simply are not enough organ and tissue donors, even to
meet present demand.
Federal policies surrounding the issue of organ transplantation are
difficult. Whenever you deal with whether someone lives or dies, there
are no easy answers. There are between 15,000 and 20,000 potential
cadaveric donors each year, yet inexcusably, in 1997 there were only
some 5,400 actual donors. That's why we need you to help us educate
others about the facts surrounding tissue and organ donation.
Mr. President, there has been unprecedented cooperation, on both
sides of the aisle, and a growing commitment to awaken public
compassion on behalf of those who need organ transplants. It is my very
great pleasure to introduce this bill on behalf of a group of Senators
who have already contributed in extremely significant ways to the cause
of organ transplantation. And we are proud to ask you to join us, in
encouraging people to give life to others.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr.
Helms):
S. 500. A bill to amend section 991(a) of title 28, United States
Code, to require certain members of the United States Sentencing
Commission to be selected from among individuals who are victims of a
crime of violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
united states sentencing commission legislation
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill
that I sponsored in the last Congress to give victims of crime a
greater voice in sentencing. My bill, which is being cosponsored by
Senators Jeffords and Helms, would reserve two of the seven seats on
the United States Sentencing Commission for victims of violent crimes.
Mr. President, the Sentencing Commission is an independent entity
within the judicial branch that establishes sentencing policies and
practices for the Federal courts. This includes sentencing guidelines
that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for
offenders convicted of Federal crimes.
The U.S. sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members
who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the
Senate, for six-year terms. The Commission also includes two non-voting
members. Of the seven voting members of the Sentencing Commission,
three must be Federal judges.
Under my bill, two of the four seats on the Sentencing Commission
that are not filled by Federal judges would be reserved for victims of
a crime of violence or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate family
member of such a victim. My bill utilizes the definition of a crime of
violence that is found in section 16 of title 18 of the United States
Code.
All seven voting seats on the Sentencing Commission are vacant. Now
is the right time to give victims of crime a voice by requiring that
two of those vacant seats must be filled by Americans who have been
victimized by violent crimes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was order to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 500
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF UNITED STATES SENTENCING
COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Section 991(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after ``same political party,''
the following: ``Of the members who are not Federal judges,
not less than 2 members shall be individuals who are victims
of a crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16
of title 18) or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate
family member of such a victim.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to any appointment made on or after
the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 501. A bill to address resource management issues in Glacier Bay
National Park, Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
glacier bay fisheries act
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing--together with
my good friend Senator Stevens--new legislation to ensure that the
marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park remain open to the fisheries
that have been conducted there for many, many years.
For a number of years, the Park Service has attempted to seize
authority over fisheries management in Glacier Bay from the State of
Alaska, which holds title to the marine waters and submerged lands
within Glacier Bay National Park. This is an infringement of the
State's sovereignty under the constitutional doctrine of equal footing,
as confirmed by Congress in the Submerged Lands Act, and the Alaska
Statehood Act.
As my colleagues should all be aware, commercial fisheries have been
conducted in these waters for well over 100 years, since long before
the federal government became interested in them. Subsistence fishing
and gathering by local residents has been practiced for up to 9,000
years, and perhaps longer.
Yet today, officials of the National Park Service want Glacier Bay
off limits to those who have depended on it
[[Page 3360]]
for their sustenance and livelihoods for generations.
Most recently, agents of the Park Service harassed a number of
commercial crab fishermen who were fishing in areas which have always
been open to them. Some of these were areas which may be closed under
legislation adopted last year, but for which the Park Service has not
yet promulgated regulations to effect the closure.
Although Park Service officials now say they merely asked for
voluntary compliance and attempted to educate fishermen about their
plans, the fishermen tell a different, and more sinister, story.
This particular crab fishery is only six days long, with the first
two days being crucial to a fisherman's financial success. Because of
this, fishermen must work literally around the clock for the first 48
to 72 hours. After the first two days, their earning potential--even
for a top fisherman--drops from almost $60,000 per day to less than
$20,000.
It is important to note that these are not large scale fisheries. We
are talking about a small handful of fishermen, some working solely
with their families.
Out of the 14 vessels working in the Bay during the recent fishery,
11 were boarded--right in the middle of those crucial first two days--
by armed and intimidating Park Service agents. Many were either told
they were in closed waters, or threatened that if they did not move,
they would be prosecuted. Needless to say, these fishermen are law-
abiding members of society, so they pulled up their fishing gear and
moved, taking very serious financial losses as a result.
Mr. President, let me ask you how difficult it would have been to
write a letter before the season opened and send it to these 14
fishermen? How hard would it be to send a letter to 20 fishermen? or to
50? In other words, Mr. President, how hard would it have been to avoid
such confrontational and damaging tactics?
It would not have been hard at all, Mr. President, and the fact that
the agency did not choose to do so is just one more example of how
unfairly the Park Service has behaved to those who live and work in
Alaska.
It is time for this to stop, and to ensure that it does, I am today
offering a simple, clean solution. First, the bill authorizes
subsistence fishing and gathering under the existing federal governing
authority for such activities. Second, the bill authorizes the State of
Alaska to conduct its marine fisheries without interference, except a
fishery for Dungeness crab, for which a compensation plan has already
been adopted. And third, the bill authorizes the use of up to
$2,000,000 per year--which the Park Service is already collecting but
which it has failed to use for the purpose intended by Congress--to be
used to pay damages to fishermen who were unfairly harmed.
Mr. President, this is a matter of simple fairness. These are not
new fisheries, but old ones--fisheries which throughout their long
history have never caused a problem, and are today more tightly
controlled than ever by State of Alaska law and regulation.
Fishermen have caused no harm here. The only harm has been caused
either by the arrogant demands of those who want the park to
themselves, or those who are well-meaning but ignorant of the facts. It
is time the former become better neighbors, and time for the latter to
learn the truth.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 501
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 ``Glacier Bay Fisheries Act''.
SEC. 2. RESOURCE HARVESTING.
(a) In Glacier Bay National Park, the Secretary of the
Interior shall accommodate--
(1) the conduct of subsistence fishing and gathering under
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 3111 et. seq.); and
(2) the conduct by the State of Alaska, in accordance with
the principles of sustained yield, of marine commercial
fisheries, except fishing for Dungeness crab in the waters of
the Beardslee Islands and upper Dundas Bay.
SEC. 3. CLAIMS FOR LOST EARNINGS.
Section 3(g) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(g)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) to pay an aggregate of not more than $2,000,000 per
fiscal year in actual and punitive damages to persons that,
at any time after January 1, 1999, suffered or suffer a loss
in earnings from commercial fisheries legally conducted in
the marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park, due to any
action by an officer, employee, or agent of any Federal
department or agency, that interferes with any person legally
fishing or attempting to fish in such commercial fisheries.
______
By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 502. A bill to protect social security; 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.
The protect social security benefits act of 1999
Mr. ASCHROFT. Mr. President, there is no more worthy government
obligation than ensuring that those who paid a lifetime of Social
Security taxes will receive their full Social Security benefits. Social
Security is a national, cultural and legal obligation. Social Security
is our most import social program, a contact between the government and
its citizens. Americans, including one million Missourians, depend on
this commitment.
This is more than just a governmental commitment. We have a
responsibility as a culture to care for the elderly. Social Security is
the only retirement income most of our seniors receive. It is our
obligation, passed down from generation to generation, to provide
retirement security for every American.
As individuals, all of us care about Social Security because we know
the benefits it pays to our mothers and fathers, relatives and friends.
And we think of the Social Security taxes we and our children pay--up
to 12.4 percent of our income. We pay these taxes with the
understanding that they help our parents and their friends, and we hope
that our taxes will somehow, someday make it possible to help pay for
our own retirements.
In my case, thinking of Social Security brings to mind friends and
constituents such as Lenus Hill of Bolivar, MO, who relies on her
Social Security to meet living expenses. Billy Yarberry lives on a farm
near Springfield and depends on Social Security. And there is Rev.
Walter Keisker of Cape Girardeau, who will be 100 years old next July
and lives on Social Security. These faces bring meaning to Social
Security.
Whenever I meet with folks in Missouri, I am asked, ``Senator, you
won't let them use my Social Security taxes to pay for the United
Nations, will you?'' Or, ``Why can't I get my full benefits if I work
after 65?'' Or, ``You know I need my Social Security, don't you?''
And then there are the letters on Social Security I get every day.
Ed and Beverly Shelton of Independence, MO, write: ``Aren't the
budget surpluses the result of Social Security taxes generating more
revenue than is needed to fund current benefits? Therefore, the Social
Security surplus is the surplus!* * * Yes, we are senior citizens and
receive a very limited amount of Social Security. We are children who
survived the Great Depression and World War II so we know how to
stretch a dollar and rationed goods--just wish Congress were as careful
with spending our money as we are!''
These concerns are why I am introducing today the Protect Social
Security Benefits Act. Americans who have devoted 12% of their wages to
the Social Security Trust Fund deserve their full Social Security
payments now and in the century to come. The bill is part of a five
part package that, taken together, seeks to provide greater protection
for the Social Security Trust Fund.
[[Page 3361]]
The substance and message of these provisions is that Social Security
must be protected: protected from politicians who raid Social Security
to finance additional deficits; protected from those who want to gamble
with Social Security in the stock market; protected so that investment
decisions ensure current and future benefits; protected so that seniors
who work get full benefits; protected so that we keep our commitment to
America's retirees.
The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 prevents
the use of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Funds to finance
deficits in the rest of the federal budget. We must build a wall so
high around the Social Security Trust Funds so that it cannot be used
to pay for new government spending. Social Security should not finance
new spending. But that is exactly what has happened in the past, is now
happening, and will continue happening in the future, unless changes
are made. It must end.
Specifically, the bill makes it out of order for the House or Senate
to pass, or even debate, a budget or bill that uses Social Security
surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of the budget. In both the
House and Senate, a three-fifths vote, or a super majority, would be
required to change that. Let me assure you that this is extremely
unlikely. We have enough trouble getting 51 Senators to agree to
anything, let alone 60. Thus, it would be extremely difficult to use
the Social Security surplus to fund new deficit spending.
Two other bills I am supporting will also reduce debt and thereby
strengthen our economy, Social Security and our future. The first bill
structures the payment of the national debt by amortizing it--paying it
off in installments--over the next 30 years. The second bill reduces
the public debt limit every two years as an additional incentive to
reduce borrowing. Additional surpluses in the Social Security Trust
Fund can buy down publicly-held debt. By reducing the public debt, my
plan will make it easier for America to meet its Social Security
obligations in three ways. First, over the long run, paying off the
debt will lower interest payments, which are now over $200 billion
annually, equaling about 15% of the budget. Second, by relieving
America of the burden of the $3.8 trillion national debt over the next
30 years, it will free up more resources that may be able to meet
Social Security obligations in the future. Finally, a debt-free America
will have a stronger, faster-growing economy, and will be better
equipped to come up with the money to redeem the Trust Fund when we
need it.
We must remember that federal debt incurs very real costs, in the
form of interest payments and higher interest rates. With that in mind,
we cannot afford not to pay off the debt. While it will cost money to
pay off the debt, it is better to budget for those costs now. On this
point, I agree with President Clinton. His idea to use Social Security
surpluses to pay down our existing debt is a wise one, and I am
offering a responsible plan to make it happen.
Finally, and given the fact that Social Security surpluses are
routinely being used to finance deficits in the rest of the budget of
the federal government, it is time to decide carefully how Social
Security should be treated in any proposed constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. I have always supported a balanced budget
amendment. In the past, I have supported an effort that did not
distinguish between Social Security accounts and the rest of the
federal budget. However, last year's raid of the Social Security
surplus to fund other government spending under the guise of
``emergency spending'' has convinced me that Social Security must be
protected under our constitution. Social Security must be walled off
for special treatment in any proposed balanced budget amendment. We
must make clear that the federal budget should be balanced without
counting any Social Security surpluses.
Walling off the trust funds is the first step, not the only step,
needed to protect Social Security. This is the right way to start the
effort to improve Social Security so it is strong for our children and
grandchildren.
To do this, we need to be honest, realizing that, for now, time is on
our side to make thoughtful improvements. For the past few months, I
have comprehensively reviewed Social Security. My conviction is that
understanding must always come before reforming. The following
summarizes the facts about Social Security.
Social Security does now and will in the near future accumulate
annual surpluses. Together, income from payroll taxes and interest is
greater than the amount of benefits being paid out. The Social Security
Trustees believe that these surpluses will continue each year for the
next 14 years. In that time, a $2.8 trillion total surplus will
accumulate.
In the year 2013, however, when more baby boomers will be in
retirement, annual benefit payments will exceed annual taxes received
by Social Security through taxes and interest. As a result, Social
Security will run an annual deficit. By 2021, annual benefit payments
will exceed annual taxes received by Social Security and interest
earned on the accumulated surpluses. In the year 2032, Social Security
payroll taxes will not only be insufficient to pay benefits; the
surpluses will be used up. Social Security will be bankrupt.
Bipartisan efforts are underway to address this long-term situation.
I will take an active part in this work. We must strengthen Social
Security's capacity to pay benefits in full beyond the year 2032.
But there is no getting around the fact that a key to the long-term
solvency of Social Security is how the current mushrooming Social
Security surplus is invested, managed and spent. That's why the Protect
Social Security Benefits Act focuses on how the current Social Security
surplus is invested and managed.
Where is the Social Security surplus? This question helps us
understand what the Social Security surplus is, and is not. In truth,
the Trust Funds have no money, only interest-bearing notes. It would be
foolish to have money in the trust fund that earned no interest or had
no return. In return for the Social Security notes, Social Security
taxes are sent to the U.S. Treasury and mingled with other government
revenues, where the entire pool of cash pays the government's day-to-
day expenses. While the Trust Funds records now show a total of $857
billion in the fund, these assets exist only in the form of government
securities, or debt. According to the Washington Post, ``The entire
Social Security Trust Fund, all [$857] billion or so of it, fits
readily in four ordinary, brown, accordion-style folders that one can
easily hold in both hands. The 174 certificates reside in a plain
combination-lock filing cabinet on the third floor of the bureau's
office building.''
In recent years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance
deficit spending in the rest of the federal budget. Take Fiscal Year
1998 for example. The Social Security surplus was $99 billion. The
deficit in the rest of the government budget was $29 billion. So $29
billion--or 30% of the Social Security surplus--financed other
government programs that were not paid for with general tax revenues.
this occurred despite President Clinton's promise to save ``every penny
of any surplus'' for Social Security.
For next year, this money shuffling is even greater. To quote the
Senate Budget Committee's February 1, 1999, analysis:
Conclusion: the President's budget, despite the rhetoric,
not only spends all the non-Social Security surplus over the
next five years, while providing no meaningful tax relief to
American families, but also dips in the Social Security
surplus for $146 billion to pay for the President's spending
priorities.
This kind of money shuffling must end. I cannot go back to Lenus Hill
or Billy Yarberry and tell them that I stood by silently as the
government devoted--spent half of their retirement money to paying for
the President's new spending initiatives. We must stop the dishonest
practice of hiding new government deficits with Social Security
surpluses.
The Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 is designed to
cripple attempts to use surpluses in the Social
[[Page 3362]]
Security Trust Funds to pay for deficits in the rest of the federal
budget. Specifically, the bill states that it is out of order for the
House and Senate to pass--or even debate--a budget that uses Social
Security surpluses to finance new debt in the rest of the budget. This
provision could only be overridden if three-fifths of the House or
Senate openly vote to bypass this rule.
Three times Congress has passed laws that tried to take Social
Security off-budget. These efforts have called for accounting
statements that require the government to keep the financial status of
Social Security separate from the rest of the budget. But these efforts
are inadequate unless Congress puts in place safeguards that protect
surpluses in Social Security from financing new government spending.
Right now, such procedures do not exist in current law or in senate
rules. On the contrary, current law and senate rules create 21 separate
points of order that apply to spending increases and tax increases,
making it difficult to protect Social Security surpluses. But none
actually stop these surpluses from paying for new budget deficits. We
need a point of order protecting Social Security surpluses from
irresponsible government raiding.
The Protect Social Security Benefits Act would create precisely such
a point of order. This would prohibit the federal government from
running a federal funds (on-budget) deficit without 60 votes, or what
is known as a super-majority. With no on-budget deficit to finance, we
would use the entire Social Security surplus to shrink the publicly-
held federal debt. Reducing the publicly-held debt would cut annual
interest costs that now cost $200 billion and 15% of the entire federal
government budget. Eliminating this interest cost would provide more
flexibility to address the long-term financing difficulties Social
Security now faces that could someday jeopardize payment of full
benefits.
The only exception to this point of order would be in time of war. If
Congress were to declare war, and the government needed to go into
deficit in order to protect our national security, then the point of
order would not apply. It would remain in effect at all other times. In
the event that the House or Senate did not pass a budget resolution,
the point of order would apply to all appropriations bills passed after
September 1. This fail-safe would ensure that the President and the
Congress could not raid the Social Security fund for irresponsible
spending, as they did last year to the tune of $22 billion.
The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act is the first
provision in a multi-part Social Security package that will address
vital issues relating to the management, investment, and taxation of
Social Security. This plan is designed to protect the Social Security
system. More importantly, it is designed to protect the American
people--from debt, from bad investments, from misinformation, and from
attempts to spend our retirement dollars on current government
spending. While I value the Social Security system, I value the
American people, people like Lenus Hill and the one million other
Missourians who receive Social Security benefits, more. My primary
responsibility is to them. My plan to protect the Social Security
system will protect the American people first, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in support of this plan.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 503. A bill designating certain land in the San Isabel National
Forest in the State of Colorado as the ``Spanish Peaks Wilderness''; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS ACT OF 1999
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, wilderness is described in the law as
lands that are, ``* * * in contrast with those areas where man and his
own works dominate the landscape, * * * an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain.'' With today's introduction of the Spanish
Peaks Wilderness bill congressmen Scott McInnis, Bob Schaffer and I are
setting aside around 18,000 acres of land that more than meets the
intent of the authors of the 1964 Wilderness Act. This land will be an
important addition to wilderness in Colorado.
Spanish Peaks had been considered for inclusion in previous
wilderness bills. However, because of unresolved issues it was not
appropriate to designate it in the past. Those issues included various
inholdings, the use of an old access road in the wilderness area, as
well as the potential coal bed methane production on portions of the
land. Those issues have either been resolved in this bill or they have
been resolved through other methods. The resolution of these issues has
maintained the integrity of the proposed wilderness area as well as
protecting the needs of the local community.
Because of this, the legislation should have the backing of the local
community, Colorado environmental groups, and the majority of the
Colorado delegation. There is no reason why it cannot be passed
quickly.
All Colorado wilderness bills should go through the process this bill
went through. Congressman McInnis, Congressman Schaffer and I decided
that cooperation, consensus, and communication were essential to
success. Therefore, we casted our net broadly for concerns, and when
they were raised in good faith we actually sat down and worked them
out. I have been struck by the fact that when people are given the
opportunity to be part of the process they feel like they have a stake
in the outcome and they try to be constructive in their criticisms.
Because of constructive critics like the Huerfano County Commissioners,
this legislation is better now then it was when they first looked at
it.
While the legislation is complete, we are still seeking clarification
on one point. The Huerfano County Commissioners are seeking to have a
trail that is slightly inside the wilderness area, as designated in the
legislation, excluded. My staff has spoken with the local Forest
Service staffer and they appear to have no objection to this change. It
is still uncertain whether we actually need to change the legislation
to do this or whether the map can be adjusted by the Forest Service
without any legislative changes. If it is the former than we will make
that change prior to passing it out of the Senate. If it is the latter,
we will exchange letters with the Forest Service to ensure we are
talking about the same trail in the same place. This change should not
be of concern. It is only slightly inside the boundaries and any
changes we make to exclude it would be of only a slight impact on the
entire designation.
I want to thank Congressman McInnis, Congressman Schaffer, and the
local community for working through this process. When the Colorado
delegation works as a team they work the best for the State of
Colorado.
______
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 504. A bill to reform Federal election campaigns; to the Committee
on Rules and Administration.
____________________
THE FEDERAL ELECTION ENFORCEMENT AND DISCLOSURE REFORM ACT
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President. I rise today to address the important
issue of campaign finance reform. As we begin the 106th Congress,
campaign finance reform continues to be an important national need.
Therefore, I am again introducing my Federal Election Enforcement And
Disclosure Reform Act with the hope that this will be the year that
Congress makes positive strides towards meaningful reform.
After participating in the Governmental Affairs Committee's extensive
1997 campaign finance hearings, it was apparent to me that there is a
critical need for reform of our entire campaign finance system. What I
witnessed, heard and read made me even more convinced that we must
strengthen our campaign financing laws, and provide strong enforcement
through the Federal Election Commission of these laws, or risk seeing
our election process be swept away in a tidal wave of money. In spite
of public support, and
[[Page 3363]]
positive action in the House, the Senate failed last year to enact
meaningful legislation addressing these problems, and we have now gone
through yet another election cycle in which the abuses continued to
persist. With the record high of $1 billion spent in pursuit of federal
office in 1996--a 73 percent increase since 1992, I had hoped that the
1998 election would at least reflect a natural decline from the grossly
inflated figures. However, post-election reports filed with the FEC
show that spending in Senate general election campaigns went from
$220.8 million in 1996, to $244.3 in 1998, an 11% increase. It has been
estimated that if these trends continue, by 2025 it will take $145
million to finance an average Senate campaign. This absurd trend cannot
continue.
Although the Senate failed last year to enact meaningful reform, I am
hopeful that, with a new Congress, we will take up this important issue
in earnest. The legislation I am re-introducing today, the Federal
Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act, addresses one of the
most serious problems with our current system, the inability of the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) to adequately enforce our existing
campaign laws. I recently read a compelling article entitled ``No Cop
on the Beat,'' which appeared in the January 23, 1999 issue of the
National Journal. The author, Eliza Newlin Carney, perhaps summarizes
best the current judgment on the effectiveness of the FEC when she
states that ``[a] long-standing joke around town is that the commission
is a government success story: It is precisely the weak and ineffective
agency that Congress intended it to be.''
The article was written following a December 1998 FEC hearing on the
1996 elections during which FEC auditors alleged that the national
campaign committees of both major parties violated campaign finance
rules with respect to broadcast advertising. Although party leaders
maintained that the advertisements in question were legitimate
``issue'' ads appropriately paid for by millions of dollars in ``soft''
money, based on their investigation, the FEC auditors alleged that they
were illegal ads which caused both major party Presidential campaigns
to exceed the federal spending limit and, more importantly, allowed
both campaigns to ``essentially bilk . . . the federal Treasury out of
no less than $25 million.'' The auditors recommended that the campaigns
repay the money. However, the commissioners unanimously rejected these
recommendations and refused to specifically address the alleged
grievous violations of federal campaign laws.
Although the author of the National Journal piece is very critical of
the enforcement system, her criticism correctly does not end with the
FEC. ``[T]he FEC isn't the only cop that seems to have deserted the
beat.'' According to the author, the FEC's refusal to enforce the
campaign regulations has also had a chilling effect on the Justice
Department's willingness to complete thorough investigations of the
abuses in the 1996 election cycle. Furthermore, she points out that
last year Congress again failed to enact new campaign finance laws to
help correct the problems. She concludes by mentioning the movement by
some politicians to totally deregulate the system--``By default, the
no-holds-barred camp seems to be winning. Their deregulation model is
starting to look an awful lot like the system we have today.''
As we can see in the preliminary preparations already underway, the
2000 election cycle is likely to be heading in the same direction and I
believe that this is the optimal time for us to act in order to prevent
such abuses. Although my bill will not address all of the campaign
finance system problems, it will revitalize the Federal Election
Commission to enable it to more effectively enforce current campaign
finance laws, and to close some loopholes in current campaign
disclosure requirements in order to provide the American people with
more comprehensive and more timely information on campaign finances.
As I made clear last year, I do not intend my legislation to fix all
of the problems with the campaign finance system. It is my
understanding that Senators McCain and Feingold also intend to re-
introduce their important legislation, which I intend to again co-
sponsor. I continue to believe that enactment of McCain-Feingold or
similar legislation is an essential step for the Senate to take this
year in beginning the process of repairing a campaign finance system
which is totally out of control. Banning soft money and imposing
disclosure and contribution requirements on sham issue ads aired close
to an election, as provided for under McCain-Feingold, are absolutely
vital reforms, without which the campaign finance system will only grow
less accountable, and more vulnerable to the appearance, if not the
fact, of undue influence by big money.
However, I want to broaden the scope of debate, and to begin the
process of seeking common ground on important reforms which go beyond
the problems of soft money and issue ads. As previously discussed, one
of the most glaring deficiencies in our current federal campaign system
is the ineffectiveness of its supposed referee, the Federal Election
Commission. The FEC, whether by design or through circumstance, has
been beset by partisan gridlock, uncertain and insufficient resources,
and lengthy proceedings which offer no hope of timely resolution of
charges of campaign violations.
Thus, the first major element of my bill is to strengthen the ability
of the Federal Election Commission to be an effective and impartial
enforcer of federal campaign laws. Among the most significant FEC-
related changes I am proposing are the following:
Alter the Commission structure to remove the possibility of partisan
gridlock by establishing a 7-member Commission, appointed by the
President based on qualifications, for single 7-year terms. The
Commission would be composed of two Republicans, two Democrats, one
third party member, and two members nominated by the Supreme Court.
Give the FEC independent litigating authority, including before the
Supreme Court, and establish a right of private civil action to seek
court enforcement in cases where the FEC fails to act, both of which
should dramatically improve the prospects for timely enforcement of the
law.
Provide sufficient funding of the FEC from a source independent of
Congressional intervention by the imposition of filing fees on federal
candidates, with such fees being adequate to meet the needs of the
Commission--estimated to be $50 million a year.
A second major component of the Federal Election Enforcement and
Disclosure Reform Act is to create a new Advisory Committee on Federal
Campaign Reform to provide for a body outside of Congress to
continually review and recommend changes in our federal campaign
system. The Committee would be charged, ``to study the laws (including
regulations) that affect how election campaigns for Federal office are
conducted and the implementation of such laws and may make
recommendations for change,'' which are to be submitted to Congress by
April 15 of every odd-numbered year. As with the FEC, the Advisory
Committee would receive independent and sufficient funding via the new
federal candidate filing fees.
The impetus for the Advisory Committee is two-fold: (1) to build a
``continuous improvement'' mechanism into the Federal campaign system,
and (2) to address the demonstrable fact that Congress responds slowly,
if at all, to the need for changes and updates in our campaign laws. In
both instances, the conclusion is the same: we cannot afford to wait
twenty-five years or until a major scandal develops to adapt our
campaign finance system to changing circumstances.
The final section of my bill seeks to enhance the effectiveness of
campaign contribution disclosure requirements. As Justice Brandeis
observed, ``Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and
industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants;
electric light the most effective policeman.'' This is certainly true
in the realm of campaign finance, and
[[Page 3364]]
perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Watergate Reforms of a quarter-
century ago is the expanded campaign and financial disclosure
requirements which emerged. By and large, they have served us well, but
as with everything else, they need to be periodically reviewed and
updated in light of experience. Therefore, based in part on testimony I
heard during the 1997 Governmental Affairs Committee investigation and
in part on the FEC's own recommendations for improved disclosure, my
bill will make several changes in current disclosure requirements.
Specifically, I am recommending two reforms which will make it more
difficult for contributors and campaigns alike to turn a blind eye to
current disclosure requirements by, first, preventing a campaign from
depositing a contribution until all of the requisite disclosure
information is provided; and second, requiring those who contribute
$200 or more to provide a signed certification that their contribution
is not from a foreign national, and is not the result of a contribution
in the name of another person.
In addition, my legislation adopts a number of disclosure
recommendations made by the FEC in its 1997 report to Congress,
including provisions: requiring all reports to be filed by the due date
of the report; requiring all authorized candidate committee reports to
be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a calendar year
cycle; and mandating monthly reporting for multi candidate committees
which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising or spending, in
excess of $100,000 in the current election cycle.
It is easy to be pessimistic when considering campaign finance reform
efforts especially after last year's inaction by the Senate. The public
and the media are certainly expecting Congress to fail to take
significant action to clean up the scandalous campaign system under
which we now run. But ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I suggest
that we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We may think we will
be able to win the next re-election because the level of outrage and
the awareness of the extent of the vulnerability of our political
system have perhaps not yet reached critical mass. But I am confident
that it is only a matter of time, and perhaps the next election cycle--
which will undoubtedly feature more unaccountable soft money, more sham
issue ads of unknown parentage, more circumvention of the spirit and in
some cases the letter of current campaign finance law--before the
scales are decisively tilted in favor of reform.
We will have campaign finance reform. The only question is whether
this Congress will step up to the plate, and fulfill its
responsibilities, to give the American people a campaign system they
can have faith in and which can preserve and protect our noble
democracy as we enter a new century.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary of Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act
i. fec reform
A. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) would be
restructured as follows:
The Commission will be composed of 7 members appointed by
the President who are specially qualified to serve on the
Commission by reason of relevant knowledge: two Republican
members appointed by the President; two Democratic members
appointed by the President; one member appointed by the
President from among all other political parties whose
candidates received at least 3% of the national popular vote
in the most recent Presidential or U.S. House or U.S. Senate
elections; in the event no third party reached this
threshold, the President may consider all third parties in
making this appointment; and two members appointed by the
President from among 10 nominees submitted by the U.S.
Supreme Court. One of these two members would be chosen by
the Commission to serve as Chairman.
Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for
appointment to the FEC) is defined to include:
A higher education degree in government, politics, or
public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant
work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
A minimum of two years experience in working on or in
relation to Federal election law or other Federal electoral
issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
Commissioners will be limited to one 7 year term.
B. The FEC would be given the following additional powers:
Electronic filing of all reports required to be filed with
the FEC would be mandatory, with a waiver permitted for
candidates or other entities whose total expenditures or
receipts fall below a threshold amount set by the Commission.
The requirement for the submission of hard (paper) copies of
such reports would be continued.
The Commission would be authorized to conduct random audits
and investigations in order to increase voluntary compliance
with campaign finance laws.
The FEC would be authorized to seek court enforcement when
the Commission believes a substantial violation is occurring,
failure to act will result in ``irreparable harm'' to an
affected party, expeditious action will not cause ``undue
harm'' to the interests of other parties, and the public
interest would best be served by the issuance of an
injunction.
The Commission would be authorized to implement expedited
procedures for complaints filed within 60 days of a general
election.
Penalties for knowing and willful violations of the Federal
Election Campaign Act would be increased.
The Commission would be expressly granted independent
litigating authority, including before the Supreme Court.
Private individuals or groups would be authorized to
independently seek court enforcement when the FCC fails to
act within 120 days of when a complaint is filed. A ``loser
pays'' standard would apply in such proceedings.
The Commission would be authorized to levy fines, not to
exceed $5,000, for minor reporting violations, and to publish
a schedule for fines for such violations.
Candidates for the Senate would be required to file with
the FEC rather than the Secretary of the Senate.
C. The FEC would be provided with resources in the
following manner:
Consistent with its expanded duties, the FEC would be
authorized to receive $50 million in FY2000 and FY2001, with
this amount indexed for inflation thereafter.
The funding would be derived from a ``user fee'' imposed on
federal candidate and party committees. The FEC would
establish a fee schedule and determine the requisite fee
level to fund the operations of the FEC and the new Advisory
Committee on Federal Campaign Reform. This determination will
include a waiver for the first $50,000 raised by campaigns.
ii. advisory committee on federal campaign reform
A. A new Advisory Committee on Federal Campaign Reform
would be created.
B. The Committee would be composed of 9 members, who are
specially qualified to serve on the Committee by reason of
relevant knowledge, to be appointed as follows: 1 appointed
by the President of the United States, 1 appointed by the
Speaker of the House, 1 each appointed by the Majority and
Minority Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, 1 appointed by
the Supreme Court, 1 appointed by the Reform Party (or
whatever third party's candidate for President received the
largest number of popular votes in the most recent
Presidential election), and 1 appointed by the American
Political Science Association. Committee members would elect
the Chairman.
C. Committee members would each serve four-year terms, and
would be limited to two consecutive terms.
D. The appointees by the Supreme Court, the Reform Party
(or other third party), and the American Political Science
Association must be individuals who, during the five years
before their appointment, have not held elective office as a
member of the Democratic or Republican Parties, have not
received any wages or salaries from the Democratic or
Republican Parties, or have not provided substantial
volunteer services or made any substantial contribution to
the Democratic or Republican Parties, or to a Democratic or
Republican party public office-holder or candidate for
office.
E. Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for
appointment to the Committee) is defined to include:
A higher education degree in government, politics, or
public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant
work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
A minimum of two years experience in working on or in
relation to national campaign finance or other electoral
issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
F. The Committee would be authorized to spend $1 million a
year in its first year, indexed for inflation thereafter.
Funding would be provided by the new campaign user fee
discussed above.
G. The Committee would be required to monitor the operation
of federal election laws and to submit a report, including
recommended changes in law, to Congress by April 15 of every
odd numbered year.
H. Congress would be required to consider the Committee's
recommendations under ``fast track'' procedures to guarantee
expeditious consideration in both houses of Congress.
[[Page 3365]]
iii. enhanced campaign finance disclosure
A. Campaign would be prohibited from putting contributions
which lack all requisite contributor information into any
account other than an escrow account from which money cannot
be spent. Contributions placed in such an account would not
be subject to the current ten-day maximum holding period on
checks.
B. A new requirement would be placed on contributions in
excess of $200 (aggregate): a written certification by the
contributor that the contribution is not derived from any
foreign income source, and is not the result of a
reimbursement by another party.
C. The current option to file reports submitted by
registered or certified mail based on postmark date would be
deleted, thus requiring all reports to be filed by the due
date of the report.
D. Authorized candidate committee reports would be required
to be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a
calendar year cycle.
E. Monthly reporting would be mandated for multi candidate
committees which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising
or spending, in excess of $100,000 in the current election
cycle.
F. The requirement for filing of last-minute independent
expenditures would be clarified to make clear that such
report must be received within 24 hours after the independent
expenditure is made.
G. Campaign disbursements to secondary payees who are
independent subcontractors would have to be reported.
H. Political committees, other than authorized candidate
committees, which have received or spent, or anticipate
receiving or spending, $100,000 or more in the current
election cycle would be subjected to the same ``last minute''
contribution reporting requirements as candidate committees.
(Under current law, all contributions of $1,000 or more
received after the 205th day, but before 48 hours, before an
election must be reported to the FEC within 48 hours.)
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 506. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently extend the provisions which allow nonrefundable personal
credits to be fully allowed against regular tax liability; to the
Committee on Finance.
THE WORKING FAMILIES TAX RELIEF ACT
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
ensure that middle income working families receive the tax credits that
Congress intended for them.
There are many absurdities in our tax code, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues to reform and simplify our entire tax
system. Today, however, I offer a small first step toward making our
tax laws sensible. The legislation I am introducing will protect
millions of working families by allowing taxpayers to deduct their
nonrefundable personal credits without having to include those credits
in any determination of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) liability. Tax
laws created to deal with wealthy folks who overuse tax shelters simply
should not apply to middle income families. This legislation is
necessary, and it will actually remove language from the tax code
making it more simple and more user friendly.
Imagine for a moment two working parents in Arkansas making $33,800.
They work hard to spread their incomes far enough to pay their mortgage
and care for their two school-age children and one in college. It may
surprise you to know that this family falls under a tax burden that was
created to ensure that the very wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
This family would have to pay the AMT.
While the threshold income limits of the AMT have been set since
1986, incomes have slowly crept up due to inflation. This, coupled with
the inclusion of family tax credits in AMT liability determination, has
led to the ironic situation that my legislation seeks to correct. The
Alternative Minimum Tax must be changed so that a family will not be
strapped with an added tax burden simply because they choose to have
children or educate them.
Not only must we change the AMT, we must change it permanently. Last
year, Congress provided a one year provision which removed the
nonrefundable personal credits from AMT liability determination. I was
pleased to see the President extend this provision for two more years
in his budget. But we need to fix this problem permanently rather than
using a band-aid approach of year-to-year alterations.
The AMT is a looming peril for a massive number of middle-income
Americans. Two Treasury Department economists recently projected that
the number of households earning from $30,000 to $50,000 that are
subjected to the AMT will more than triple in the coming decade.
Because the individual AMT parameters are not indexed for inflation,
2.8 million taxpayers will completely lose these important family
credits by 2008. On top of this injustice, many unwitting taxpayers
will owe penalties and interest on underpaid taxes. Such a situation
cannot be allowed to exist. While Congress must soon address the issue
of indexing the AMT for inflation, permanently removing the
nonrefundable personal credits from the reach of the AMT is the first
step to ensuring that America's middle-income taxpayers will receive
the financial relief they deserve while avoiding the confusion and
frustration of year-to-year tax legislation.
American families were given a child tax credit to help them raise
their kids. Education credits were created to help make a college
education more affordable for all Americans. These tax credits are good
for families. They are important to working people and they are great
for the long term future of our economy. As our law currently stands,
however, many middle-income families will not be able to use these
credits because they will be either totally eliminated or significantly
reduced by the AMT. The education and child credits are not, however,
the only credits that stand to be voided by the growing menace of the
AMT. People who bring children into their homes will lose the value of
the adoption credit. The credit for the elderly and the disabled will
lose its value, and the dependant care credit will be effectively
canceled by the AMT. This is absurd and the problem must be rectified.
I would like to thank the ranking member of the Finance Committee,
Senate Moynihan, and his very capable staffer, Stan Fendley, for
working with me on this legislation. And I'd like to thank Senators
Moynihan, Cochran, Breaux, Kerrey, and Landrieu for signing on as
original co-sponsors. I encourage our colleagues to join us in this
common sense approach to helping working families.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in
the Record with these comments as well as the January 10, 1999 New York
Times article by David Cay Johnston titled ``Funny, They Don't Look
Like Fat Cats.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 506
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS FULLY ALLOWED
AGAINST REGULAR TAX LIABILITY.
(a) In General.--Section 26(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to limitation based on amount of tax) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The aggregate
amount of credits allowed by this subpart for the taxable
year shall not exceed the taxpayer's regular tax liability
for the taxable year.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 24(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraphs (2)
and by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
____
[From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1999]
Funny, They Don't Look Like Fat Cats
(By David Cay Johnston)
Three decades ago, Congress, embarrassed by the disclosure
that 155 wealthy Americans had paid no Federal income taxes,
enacted legislation aimed at preventing the very rich from
shielding their wealth in tax shelters.
Today, that legislation, creating the alternative minimum
tax, is instead snaring a rapidly growing number of middle-
class taxpayers, forcing them to pay additional tax or to
lose some of their tax breaks.
Of the more than two million taxpayers who will be subject
this year to the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., about
half have incomes of $30,000 to $100,000. Some are single
parents with jobs; some are people making as little as $527 a
week. Over all, the number of people affected by the tax is
expected to grow 26 percent a year for the next decade.
[[Page 3366]]
But many of the wealthy will not be among them. Even with
the A.M.T., the number of taxpayers making more than $200,000
who pay no taxes has risen to more than 2,000 each year.
How a 1969 law aimed at the tax-shy rich became a growing
burden on moderate earners illustrates how tax policy in
Washington can be a fall of mirrors.
While some Republican Congressmen favor eliminating the
tax, other lawmakers say such a move would be an expensive
tax break for the wealthy--or at lest would be perceived that
way, and thus would be politically unpalatable. And any
overhaul of the system would need to compensate for the $6.6
billion that individuals now pay under the A.M.T. This year,
such payments will account for almost 1 percent of all
individual income tax revenue.
``This is a classic case of both Congress and the
Administration agreeing that the tax doesn't make much sense,
but not being able to agree on doing anything about it,''
said C. Eugene Steuerle, an economist with the Urban
Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Washington.
Mr. Steuerle was a Treasury Department tax official in
1986, when an overhaul of the tax code set the stage for
drawing the middle class into the A.M.T.
In eliminating most tax shelters for the wealthy, Congress
decided to treat exemptions for children and deductions for
medical expenses just like special credits for investors in
oil wells, in they cut too deeply into a household's taxable
income.
Congress decided that once these ``tax preferences''
exceeded certain amounts--$40,000 for a married couple, for
example--people would be moved out of the regular income tax
and into the alternative minimum tax. At the time, the
threshold was high enough to affect virtually no one but the
rich. But it has since been raised only once--by 12.5
percent, to $45,000 for a married couple--while the cost of
living has risen 43 percent. And so the limits have sneaked
up on growing numbers of taxpayers of more modest means.
``Everyone knew back then that it had problems that had to
be fixed,'' Mr. Steuerle recalled. ``They just said, `next
year.' ''
But ``next year'' has never come--and it is unlikely to
arrive in 1999, either. While tax policy experts have known
for years that the middle class would be drawn into the
A.M.T., few taxpayers have been clamoring for change.
Among those few, however, are David and Margaret Klaassen
of Marquette, Kan. Mr. Klaassen, a lawyer who lives and works
out of a farmhouse, made $89,751.07 in 1997 and paid $5,989
in Federal income taxes. Four weeks ago, the Internal Revenue
Service sent the Klaassens a notice demanding $3,761 more
under the alternative minimum tax, including a penalty
because the I.R.S. said the Klaassens knew they owed the
A.M.T.
Mr. Klaassen acknowledges that he knew the I.R.S. would
assert that he was subject to the A.M.T., but he says the law
was not meant to apply to his family. ``I've never invested
in a tax shelter,'' he said. ``I don't even have municipal
bonds.''
The Klaassens do, however, have 13 children and their
attendant medical expenses--including the costs of caring for
their second son, Aaron, 17, who has battled leukemia for
years. It was those exemptions and deductions that subjected
them to the A.M.T.
``What kind of policy taxes you for spending money to save
your child's life?'' Mr. Klaassen asked.
The tax affects taxpayers in three ways. Some, like the
Klaassens, pay the tax at either a 26 percent or a 28 percent
rate because they have more than $45,000 in exemptions and
deductions. Others do not pay the A.M.T. itself, but they
cannot take the full tax breaks they would have received
under the regular income tax system without running up
against limits set by the A.M.T. The A.M.T. can also convert
tax-exempt income from certain bonds and from exercising
incentive stock options into taxable income.
It may be useful to think of the alternative minimum tax as
a parallel universe to the regular income tax system, similar
in some ways but more complex and with its own
classifications of deductions, its own rates and its own
paperwork. The idea was that taxpayers who had escaped the
regular tax universe by piling on credits and deductions
would enter this new universe to pay their fair share.
(Likewise, there is a corporate A.M.T. that parallels the
corporate income tax.)
At first, the burden of the A.M.T. fell mainly on the
shoulders of business owners and investors, said Robert S.
McIntyre, executive director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a
nonprofit group in Washington that says the tax system favors
the rich. Based on I.R.S. data, Mr. McIntyre said he found
that 37 percent of A.M.T. revenue in 1990 was a result of
business owners using losses from previous years to reduce
their regular income taxes; an additional 18 percent was
because of big deductions for state and local taxes.
But that has begun to shift, largely as a result of the
1986 changes, which eliminated most tax shelters and lowered
tax rates.
When President Reagan and Congress were overhauling the tax
code, they could not make the projected revenues under the
new rules equal those under the old system. Huge, and
growing, budget deficits made it politically essential for
the official estimates to show that after tax reform, the
same amount of money would flow to Washington.
One solution, said Mr. Steuerle, the former Treasury
official, was to count personal and dependent exemptions and
some medical expenses as preferences to be reduced or ignored
under the A.M.T., just as special credits for petroleum
investments and other tax shelters are.
Mortgage interest and charitable gifts were not counted as
preferences, according to tax policy experts who worked on
the legislation, because they generated more money than was
needed.
But the A.M.T. has not stayed ``revenue neutral,'' in
Washington parlance.
The regular income tax was indexed for inflation in 1984,
so that taxpayers would not get pushed into higher tax
brackets simply because their income kept pace with the cost
of living.
The A.M.T. limits, however, have not been indexed. The
total allowable exemptions before the tax kicks in have been
fixed since 1993 at $45,000 for a married couple filing
jointly. For unmarried people, the total amount is now
$33,750, and for married people filing separately, it is
$22,500.
If the limit had been indexed since 1986, when the A.M.T.
was overhauled, it would be about $57,000 for married couples
filing jointly--and most middle-income households would still
be exempt.
Mr. Steuerle said he warned at the time that including
``normal, routine deductions and exemptions that everyone
takes'' in the list of preferences would eventually turn the
A.M.T. into a tax on the middle class.
That appears to be exactly what has happened.
For example, a married person who makes just $527 a week
and files her tax return separately can be subject to the
tax, said David S. Hulse, an assistant professor of
accounting at the University of Kentucky.
And the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which allows a $500-a-
child tax credit as well as education credits, may make even
more middle-class families subject to the A.M.T. by reducing
the value of those credits.
Two Treasury Department economists recently calculated that
largely because of the new credits, the number of households
making $30,000 to $50,000 who must pay the alternative
minimum tax will more than triple in the coming decade. The
economists, Robert Rebelein and Jerry Tempalski, also
calculated that for households making $15,000 to $30,000
annually, A.M.T. payments will grow 25-fold, to $1.2 billion,
by 2008.
Last year, many more people would have been subject to the
A.M.T. if Congress had not made a last-minute fix pushed by
Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts,
that--for 1998 only--exempted the new child and education
credits. The move came after I.R.S. officials told Congress
that the credits added enormous complexity to calculating tax
liability. Figuring out how much the A.M.T. would reduce the
credits was beyond the capacity of most taxpayers and even
many paid tax preparers, the I.R.S. officials said.
Even if Congress makes a permanent fix to the problems
created by the child and education credits, it will put only
a minor drag on the spread of the A.M.T. as long as the tax
is not indexed for inflation. The two Treasury economists
calculated that revenues from the tax would climb to $25
billion in 2008 without a fix, or to $21.9 billion with one.
In 1999, if there is no exemption for the credits, a single
parent who does not itemize deductions but who makes $50,000
and takes a credit for the costs of caring for two children
while he works, will be subject to the A.M.T., estimated
Jeffrey Pretsfelder, an editor at RIA Group, a publisher of
tax information for professionals.
If the tax laws are not changed, 8.8 million taxpayers will
have to pay the A.M.T. a decade from now, the Congressional
Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last month. Add in the
taxpayers who will not receive the full value of their
deductions because they run up against the limits set by the
A.M.T., and the total grows to 11.6 million taxpayers--92
percent of whom have incomes of less than $200,000, the two
Treasury economists estimated.
While many lawmakers and Treasury officials have criticized
the impact of the tax on middle-class taxpayers, there are
few signs of change, as Republicans and the Administration
talk past each others.
Representative Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who as the
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is the chief
tax writer, said the A.M.T. should be eliminated in the next
budget.
``Unfortunately, the A.M.T. tax can penalize large
families, which is part of the reason why Republicans for
years have tried to eliminate it or at least reduce it,'' Mr.
Archer said. ``Unfortunately, President Clinton blocked our
efforts each time.''
Lawrence H. Summers, the Deputy Treasury Secretary, said
the Administration was ``very concerned that the A.M.T. has a
growing impact on middle-class families, including by
diluting the child credit, education credits and other
crucial tax benefits, and we hope to address this issue in
the President's budget.
[[Page 3367]]
``Subject to budget constraints, we look forward to working
with Congress on this important issue,'' he continued.
That revenue concerns have thwarted exempting the middle
class runs counter to the reason Congress initially imposed
the tax.
``You need an A.M.T. because people who make a lot of money
should pay some income taxes,'' said Mr. McIntrye, of
Citizens for Tax Justice. ``If you believe, like Mr. Archer
and a lot of Republicans do, that the more you make the less
in taxes you should pay, then of course you are against the
A.M.T. But somehow I don't think some people see it that
way.''
The Klaassens, meanwhile, are challenging the A.M.T. in
Federal Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the
10th Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments in March on their
claim that the tax infringes their religious freedom. The
Klaassens, who are Presbyterians, said they believe children
``are a blessing from God, and so we do not practice birth
control,'' Mr. Klaassen said.
When Mr. Klaassen wrote to an I.R.S. official complaining
that a $1,085 bill for the A.M.T. for 1994 resulted from the
size of his family, he got back a curt letter saying that his
``analysis of the alternative minimum tax's effect on large
families was interesting but inappropriate'' and advising him
that it was medical deductions, not family size, that
subjected him to the A.M.T.
Under the regular tax system, medical expenses above 7.5
percent of adjusted gross income--the last line on the front
page of Form 1040--are deductible. Under the A.M.T., the
threshold is raised to 10 percent.
Still doubting the I.S.R.'s math, Mr. Klaassen decided to
test what would have happened had he filed the same tax
return, changing only the number of children he claimed as
dependents. He found that if he has seven or fewer children,
the A.M.T. would not have applied in 1994.
But the eighth child set off the A.M.T., at a cost of $223.
Having nine children raised the bill to $717. And 10
children, the number he had in 1994, increased that sum to
$1,085--the amount the I.R.S. said was due.
``We love this country and we believe in paying taxes,''
Mr. Klaassen said. ``But we cannot believe that Congress ever
intended to apply this tax to our family solely because of
how many children we choose to have. And I have shown that we
are subject to the AMT solely because we have chosen not to
limit the size of our family.''
The IRS, in papers opposing the Klaassens, noted that tax
deductions are not a right but a matter of ``legislative
grace.''
Mr. Klaassen turned to the Federal courts after losing in
Tax court. The opinion by Tax Court Judge Robert N. Armen Jr.
was summed up this way by Tax Notes, a magazine that
critiques tax policy: ``Congress intended the alternative
minimum tax to affect large families when it made personal
exemptions a preference item.''
Several tax experts said that Mr. Klaassen had little
chance of success in the courts because the statute treating
children as tax preferences was clear. They also said that
nothing in the AMT laws was specifically aimed at his
religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, for people who make $200,000 or more, the AMT
will be less of a burden this year because of the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997, which included a provision lowering the
maximum tax rate on capital gains for both the regular tax
and the AMT to 20 percent.
Mr. Rebelein and Mr. Tempalski, the Treasury Department
economists, calculated recently that people making more than
$200,000 would pay a total of 4 percent less in AMT for 1998
because of the 1997 law. By 2008, their savings will be 9
percent, largely as a result of lower capital gains rates and
changed accounting rules for business owners.
``This law was passed to catch people who use tax shelters
to avoid their obligations,'' Mr. Klaassen said. ``But
instead of catching them it hits people like me. This is just
nuts.''
three ways to deal with a taxing problem
President Clinton, his tax policy advisers and the
Republicans who control the tax writing committees in
Congress all agree that the alternative minimum tax is a
growing problem for the middle class. But there is no
agreement on what to do. Here are some options that have been
discussed.
Raise the exemption--Representative Bill Archer, the Texas
Republican who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, two years ago proposed raising the $45,000 AMT
exemption for a married couple by $1,000. But that would
leave many middle-class families subject to the tax, because
it would not fully account for inflation. To do that would
require an exemption of about $57,000, followed by automatic
inflation adjustments. That is the most widely favored
approach, drawing support from people like J.D. Foster,
executive director of the Tax Foundation, a group supported
by corporations, and Robert S. McIntyre, executive director
of Citizens for Tax Justice, which is financed in part by
unions and contends that the tax system favors the rich.
Exempt child and education credits--For 1998 only, Congress
exempted the child tax credit and the education tax credits
from the AMT. But millions of taxpayers will lose these
credits, or get only part of them, unless Congress makes a
fix each year or permanently exempts them.
Eliminate it--Mr. Archer and other Republicans want to get
rid of the AMT but have not proposed how to make up for the
lost revenue, which in a decade is expected to grow to $25
billion annually. Recently, however, Mr. Archer has said that
in a period of Federal budget surpluses, it may be time to
scrap the budget rules that require paying for tax cuts with
reduced spending or tax increases elsewhere.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bennett, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 507. A bill to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the water resources development act of 1999
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today
legislation to reauthorize the civil works mission of the Corps of
Engineers.
I am joined today by the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and
Pubic Works, Senator Chafee; the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator
Baucus; the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Senator Voinovich; Senator Bennett, Senator Lautenberg,
and Senator Boxer in cosponsoring this legislation.
Since 1986, it has been the policy and practice of the Congress to
reauthorize Corps of Engineers civil works activities--projects for
flood control, navigation, hurricane protection and erosion control,
and environmental restoration--on a two-year cycle. Last year, the
Senate passed S. 2131 by unanimous consent. Regrettably, the House was
unable to consider companion legislation.
In an effort to keep these critically needed projects on schedule, I
am pleased that the Chairman Chafee and Majority Leader Lott have
indicated their strong support for promptly considering this bill this
year. The bill I am introducing today mirrors S. 2131 passed last year
with updated cost estimates and project revisions provided by the Corps
of Engineers.
This legislation authorizes the construction of 37 new flood control,
navigation, environmental restoration, hurricane protection and
shoreline erosion control and recreation projects. It modifies 43
previously authorized projects and calls on the Corps of Engineers to
conduct 29 studies to determine the economic justification of future
water resource projects.
Mr. President, the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986
established the principle of cost-sharing of economically justified
projects that have a federal interest. Local interests are required to
share 35 percent of the cost of construction of flood control and
hurricane protection and shoreline erosion control projects. The non-
federal financial requirements for navigation projects depend on the
depth of the project and range from 25 percent to 50 percent of the
cost of construction.
The legislation we are introducing today is consistent with the cost
sharing provisions of prior water resource laws. Also, the Committee
has been consistent in requiring that every new construction project
receive a cmpleted project report by the Chief of Engineers before it
is included in this legislation.
As the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, I commend Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus for
standing firm in support of these cost-sharing and economic benefits
tests. These policies have proven effective in authorizing projects
that are worthy of federal investment and have the strong support of
local sponsors. No other approach has been more effective in weeding
out questionable projects than requiring either a state or the local
government to contribute to the cost of engineering, design and
construction of a project.
I am pleased that this financial commitments from local sponsors,
that
[[Page 3368]]
have been thoroughly evaluated and received a report from the Chief of
Engineers, and have demonstrated that the economic benefits to be
achieved by the project exceed the federal costs.
These fundamental requirements are applied to each project and only
those that meet all of these tests are included in this legislation.
Mr. President, this legislation is critically important to many
communities who have already contributed significant resources to
prepare these projects for authorization. There is ample evidence to
confirm that the federal investment in water resource projects is a
wise investment of taxpayer dollars. In 1997 alone, Corps flood control
projects prevented approximately $45.2 billion in damages. The
continued maintenance and deepening of our commercial waterways remains
critical to the U.S. successfully competing in a one-world marketplace.
The value of commerce on these waterways totaled over $600 billion in
1996, generating 15.9 million jobs.
It is important for the Committee to enact this bill prior to the
appropriations cycle this year. I pledge to work with my colleagues so
that the full Senate can soon consider this bill.
At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 507
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 ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Project modifications.
Sec. 103. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 104. Studies.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Flood hazard mitigation and riverine ecosystem restoration
program.
Sec. 202. Shore protection.
Sec. 203. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 204. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating
information on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 205. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 206. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 207. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 208. Voluntary contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 209. Recreation user fees.
Sec. 210. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 211. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 212. Outer Continental Shelf.
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 214. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included in benefit-
cost analysis.
Sec. 215. Control of aquatic plant growth.
Sec. 216. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 217. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 218. Lakes program.
Sec. 219. Sediments decontamination policy.
Sec. 220. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 221. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 222. Reimbursement of non-Federal interest.
Sec. 223. National Contaminated Sediment Task Force.
Sec. 224. Great Lakes basin program.
Sec. 225. Projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 226. Water quality, environmental quality, recreation, fish and
wildlife, flood control, and navigation.
Sec. 227. Irrigation diversion protection and fisheries enhancement
assistance.
Sec. 228. Small storm damage reduction projects.
Sec. 229. Shore damage prevention or mitigation.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island.
Sec. 302. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 303. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 304. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 305. Streambank protection projects.
Sec. 306. Aquatic ecosystem restoration, Springfield, Oregon.
Sec. 307. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 308. Francis Bland Floodway Ditch.
Sec. 309. Caloosahatchee River basin, Florida.
Sec. 310. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.
Sec. 311. City of Miami Beach, Florida.
Sec. 312. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 313. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois waterway system
navigation modernization.
Sec. 314. Upper Mississippi River management.
Sec. 315. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake
Rivers salmon survival.
Sec. 316. Nine Mile Run habitat restoration, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 317. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 318. Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System.
Sec. 319. Study regarding innovative financing for small and medium-
sized ports.
Sec. 320. Candy Lake project, Osage County, Oklahoma.
Sec. 321. Salcha River and Piledriver Slough, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Sec. 322. Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska.
Sec. 323. North Padre Island storm damage reduction and environmental
restoration project.
Sec. 324. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 325. New York City watershed.
Sec. 326. City of Charlevoix reimbursement, Michigan.
Sec. 327. Hamilton Dam flood control project, Michigan.
Sec. 328. Holes Creek flood control project, Ohio.
Sec. 329. Overflow management facility, Rhode Island.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to
the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this section:
(1) Sand point harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,796,000.
(2) Rio salado (salt river), arizona.--The project for
environmental restoration, Rio Salado (Salt River), Arizona:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a
total cost of $88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$56,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000.
(3) Tucson drainage area, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation,
Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.
(4) American river watershed, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction
described as the Folsom Stepped Release Plan in the Corps of
Engineers Supplemental Information Report for the American
River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, at a
total cost of $505,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$329,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$176,100,000.
(B) Implementation.--
(i) In general.--Implementation of the measures by the
Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be undertaken
after completion of the levee stabilization and strengthening
and flood warning features authorized by section 101(a)(1) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).
(ii) Folsom dam and reservoir.--The Secretary may undertake
measures at the Folsom Dam and Reservoir authorized under
subparagraph (A) only after reviewing the design of such
measures to determine if modifications are necessary to
account for changed hydrologic conditions and any other
changed conditions in the project area, including operational
and construction impacts that have occurred since completion
of the report referred to in subparagraph (A). The Secretary
shall conduct the review and develop the modifications to the
Folsom Dam and Reservoir with the full participation of the
Secretary of the Interior.
(iii) Remaining downstream elements.--
(I) In general.--Implementation of the remaining downstream
elements authorized pursuant to subparagraph (A) may be
undertaken only after the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal, State, regional, and local entities, has
reviewed the elements to determine if modifications are
necessary to address changes in the hydrologic conditions,
any other changed conditions in the project area that have
occurred since completion of the report referred to in
subparagraph (A) and any design modifications for the Folsom
Dam and Reservoir made by the
[[Page 3369]]
Secretary in implementing the measures referred to in clause
(ii), and has issued a report on the review.
(II) Principles and guidelines.--The review shall be
prepared in accordance with the economic and environmental
principles and guidelines for water and related land
resources implementation studies, and no construction may be
initiated unless the Secretary determines that the remaining
downstream elements are technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified.
(5) Llagas creek, california.--The project for completion
of the remaining reaches of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service flood control project at Llagas Creek,
California, undertaken pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005),
substantially in accordance with the requirements of local
cooperation as specified in section 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C.
1004) at a total cost of $45,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $21,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal
share of $23,200,000.
(6) South sacramento county streams, california.--The
project for flood control, environmental restoration, and
recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a
total cost of $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000.
(7) Upper guadalupe river, california.--Construction of the
locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as
the Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated
August 19, 1998, at a total cost of $137,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $93,600,000.
(8) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost
of $26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
(9) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-
broadkill beach, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction and shore protection, Delaware Bay coastline:
Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware, Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated August 17, 1998, at a total cost
of $9,049,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,375,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $538,200, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$188,400.
(10) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-port
mahon, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration and
shore protection, Delaware Bay coastline: Delaware and New
Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $4,969,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,675,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $234,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$82,000.
(11) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery
project, florida.--The project for aquifer storage and
recovery described in the Corps of Engineers Central and
Southern Florida Water Supply Study, Florida, dated April
1989, and in House Document 369, dated July 30, 1968, at a
total cost of $27,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$13,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,500,000.
(12) Indian river county, florida.--Notwithstanding section
1001(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 579a(a)), the project for shoreline protection, Indian
River County, Florida, authorized by section 501(a) of that
Act (100 Stat. 4134), shall remain authorized for
construction through December 31, 2002.
(13) Lido key beach, sarasota, florida.--
(A) In general.--The project for shore protection at Lido
Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and
deauthorized by operation of section 1001(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), is
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary at a total cost
of $5,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,380,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,820,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $602,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $391,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$211,000.
(14) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project
for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a
total cost of $12,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,121,000.
(15) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--The project for
navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of
$50,717,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $32,966,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,751,000.
(16) Beargrass creek, kentucky.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated May 12, 1998, at a total cost of
$11,172,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,262,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,910,000.
(17) Amite river and tributaries, louisiana, east baton
rouge parish watershed.--The project for flood damage
reduction and recreation, Amite River and Tributaries,
Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1996, at a total cost
of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$73,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.
(18) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and
virginia.--The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor
Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of
$28,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,430,000.
(19) Red lake river at crookston, minnesota.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Red Lake River at Crookston,
Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20,
1998, at a total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $3,230,000.
(20) New jersey shore protection, townsends inlet to cape
may inlet, new jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, ecosystem restoration, and shore protection, New
Jersey coastline, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New
Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28,
1998, at a total cost of $56,503,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $36,727,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $19,776,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $2,000,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $700,000.
(21) Park river, north dakota.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the condition stated in
subparagraph (B), the project for flood control, Park River,
Grafton, North Dakota, authorized by section 401(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and
deauthorized under section 1001(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), at a total cost of
$28,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,265,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,835,000.
(B) Condition.--No construction may be initiated unless the
Secretary determines through a general reevaluation report
using current data, that the project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
(22) Salt creek, graham, texas.--The project for flood
control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Salt
Creek, Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,520,000.
(b) Projects Subject to a Final Report.--The following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers as approved by the Secretary, if the
report of the Chief is completed not later than December 31,
1999:
(1) Nome harbor improvements, alaska.--The project for
navigation, Nome Harbor Improvements, Alaska, at a total cost
of $24,608,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$19,660,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$4,948,000.
(2) Seward harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Seward Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $12,240,000, with
an estimated first Federal cost of $4,364,000 and an
estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,876,000.
(3) Hamilton airfield wetland restoration, california.--The
project for environmental restoration at Hamilton Airfield,
California, at a total cost of $55,200,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $13,800,000.
(4) Oakland, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation and
environmental restoration, Oakland, California, at a total
cost of $214,340,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$143,450,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$70,890,000.
(B) Berthing areas and other local service facilities.--The
non-Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other
local service facilities necessary for the project at an
estimated cost of $42,310,000.
[[Page 3370]]
(5) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-
roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation mitigation,
shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Bay coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt
Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of $3,393,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $773,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $196,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$44,000.
(6) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island,
bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction and shore protection, Delaware Coast from Cape
Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany
Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $7,772,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $1,584,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $554,000.
(7) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--The project for
navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, at a total cost of
$26,116,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,129,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,987,000.
(8) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage prevention and shore
protection, Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida, at a
total cost of $5,915,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,839,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.
(9) Ponce de leon inlet, volusia county, florida.--The
project for navigation and recreation, Ponce de Leon Inlet,
Volusia County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,454,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,466,000.
(10) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary
may carry out the project for navigation, Savannah Harbor
expansion, Georgia, substantially in accordance with the
plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final
report of the Chief of Engineers, with such modifications as
the Secretary deems appropriate, at a total cost of
$230,174,000 (of which amount a portion is authorized for
implementation of the mitigation plan), with an estimated
Federal cost of $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $85,014,000.
(B) Conditions.--The project authorized by subparagraph (A)
may be carried out only after--
(i) the Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal,
State, regional, and local entities, has reviewed and
approved an Environmental Impact Statement that includes--
(I) an analysis of the impacts of project depth
alternatives ranging from 42 feet through 48 feet; and
(II) a selected plan for navigation and associated
mitigation plan as required by section 906(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); and
(ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, with the Secretary, have approved the
selected plan and have determined that the mitigation plan
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the project.
(C) Mitigation requirements.--The mitigation plan shall be
implemented in advance of or concurrently with construction
of the project.
(11) Turkey creek basin, kansas city, missouri and kansas
city, kansas.--The project for flood damage reduction, Turkey
Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas,
at a total cost of $42,875,000 with an estimated Federal cost
of $25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$17,279,000.
(12) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation mitigation,
ecosystem restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May
Point, New Jersey, at a total cost of $15,952,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,834,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $1,114,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $897,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$217,000.
(13) New jersey shore protection, brigantine inlet to great
egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction and shore protection, New Jersey Shore protection,
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,740,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $465,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$163,000.
(14) Memphis harbor, memphis, tennessee.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the project
for navigation, Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorized
under section 1001(a) of that Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)) is
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
(B) Condition.--No construction may be initiated unless the
Secretary determines through a general reevaluation report
using current data, that the project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
(15) Howard hanson dam, washington.--The project for water
supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard Hanson Dam,
Washington, at a total cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $38,700,000.
SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Projects With Reports.--
(1) San lorenzo river, california.--The project for flood
control, San Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section
101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3663), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
include as a part of the project streambank erosion control
measures to be undertaken substantially in accordance with
the report entitled ``Bank Stabilization Concept, Laurel
Street Extension'', dated April 23, 1998, at a total cost of
$4,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,600,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
(2) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for
flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska, authorized
by section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) is modified to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project in accordance with the
Corps of Engineers report dated June 29, 1998, at a total
cost of $17,039,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,730,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,309,000.
(3) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for Absecon
Island, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668) is
amended to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-
Federal interests for all work performed, consistent with the
authorized project.
(4) Arthur kill, new york and new jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Arthur Kill,
New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and
modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modified
to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
total cost of $276,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$183,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$93,600,000.
(B) Berthing areas and other local service facilities.--The
non-Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other
local service facilities necessary for the project at an
estimated cost of $38,900,000.
(5) Waurika lake, oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.--
The requirement for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy
District to repay the $2,900,000 in costs (including
interest) resulting from the October 1991 settlement of the
claim of the Travelers Insurance Company before the United
States Claims Court related to construction of the water
conveyance facilities authorized by the first section of
Public Law 88-253 (77 Stat. 841) is waived.
(b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects
are modified as follows, except that no funds may be
obligated to carry out work under such modifications until
completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers, as
approved by the Secretary, finding that such work is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified, as applicable:
(1) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--
(A) In general.--The Thornton Reservoir project, an element
of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan,
Illinois, authorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to include additional
permanent flood control storage attributable to the Thorn
Creek Reservoir project, Little Calumet River Watershed,
Illinois, approved under the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(B) Cost sharing.--Costs for the Thornton Reservoir project
shall be shared in accordance with section 103 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
(C) Transitional storage.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
cooperate with non-Federal interests to provide, on a
transitional basis, flood control storage for the Thorn
[[Page 3371]]
Creek Reservoir project in the west lobe of the Thornton
quarry.
(D) Crediting.--The Secretary may credit against the non-
Federal share of the Thornton Reservoir project all design
and construction costs incurred by the non-Federal interests
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(E) Reevaluation report.--The Secretary shall determine the
credits authorized by subparagraph (D) that are integral to
the Thornton Reservoir project and the current total project
costs based on a limited reevaluation report.
(2) Wells harbor, wells, maine.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Wells Harbor,
Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1960 (74 Stat. 480), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to realign the channel and anchorage areas based on
a harbor design capacity of 150 craft.
(B) Deauthorization of certain portions.--The following
portions of the project are not authorized after the date of
enactment of this Act:
(i) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of
which begin at a point with coordinates N177,992.00,
E394,831.00, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 14.8
seconds west 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91, E394,820.68,
thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds west
991.76 feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence
running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00
feet to a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8 seconds east 994.93 feet to
the point of origin.
(ii) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of
which begin at a point with coordinates N177,778.07,
E394,336.96, thence running south 51 degrees 58 minutes 32.7
seconds west 15.49 feet to a point N177,768.53, E394,324.76,
thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.5 seconds west
672.87 feet to a point N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence
running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00
feet to a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4 seconds east 684.70 feet to
the point of origin.
(iii) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the
boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates
N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running north 78 degrees 13
minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,109.82,
E394,187.46, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 15.7
seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,816.13, E394,126.26,
thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east
9.98 feet to a point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence running
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 29.1 seconds east 300.00 feet to
the point of origin.
(iv) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the
boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates
N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running north 78 degrees 13
minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,020.04,
E394,618.21, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0
seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97,
thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east
10.03 feet to a point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds east 300.00
feet to the point of origin.
(C) Redesignations.--The following portions of the project
shall be redesignated as part of the 6-foot anchorage:
(i) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of
which begin at a point with coordinates N177,990.91,
E394,820.68, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 40.8
seconds west 94.65 feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55,
thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds west
962.83 feet to a point N177,038.40, E394,530.10, thence
running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00
feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds east 991.76 feet to
the point of origin.
(ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner harbor settling basin
the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates
N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running north 78 degrees 13
minutes 30.5 seconds west 160.00 feet to a point N177,052.69,
E394,461.58, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 45.4
seconds west 299.99 feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34,
thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east
160 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds east 300.00 feet to
the point of origin.
(iii) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of
which begin at a point with coordinates N178,102.26,
E394,751.83, thence running south 51 degrees 59 minutes 42.1
seconds west 526.51 feet to a point N177,778.07, E394,336.96,
thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.6 seconds west
511.83 feet to a point N177,277.01, E394,232.52, thence
running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 80.00
feet to a point N177,260.68, E394,310.84, thence running
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 24.8 seconds east 482.54 feet to
a point N177,733.07, E394,409.30, thence running north 51
degrees 59 minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63 feet to a point
N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running north 11 degrees 46
minutes 27.6 seconds east 123.89 feet to the point of origin.
(D) Realignment.--The 6-foot anchorage area described in
subparagraph (C)(iii) shall be realigned to include the area
located south of the inner harbor settling basin in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act beginning at a point
with coordinates N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running
north 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds west 160.00 feet to
a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running south 11
degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet to a point
N176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence running south 78 degrees 13
minutes 17.9 seconds 160.00 feet to a point N176,682.31,
E394,547.78, thence running north 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8
seconds east 45 feet to the point of origin.
(E) Relocation.--The Secretary may relocate the settling
basin feature of the project to the outer harbor between the
jetties.
(3) New york harbor and adjacent channels, port jersey, new
jersey.--The project for navigation, New York Harbor and
Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey, authorized by
section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4098), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project at a total cost of $103,267,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $76,909,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $26,358,000.
(c) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage
Reallocation.--The Secretary shall reallocate approximately
31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Arkansas, to
water supply storage at no cost to the Beaver Water District
or the Carroll-Boone Water District, except that at no time
shall the bottom of the conservation pool be at an elevation
that is less than 1,076 feet, NGVD.
(d) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland.--The
project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels,
Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to direct the
Secretary to straighten the Tolchester Channel S-turn as part
of project maintenance.
(e) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.--Any Federal
costs associated with the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes,
Nevada, authorized by section 101(13) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), incurred by the
non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify construction of
the project, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers,
shall be considered to be eligible for reimbursement by the
Secretary.
(f) Rediversion Project, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor,
South Carolina.--
(1) In general.--The rediversion project, Cooper River,
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 101
of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731) and
modified by title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 517), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to pay the State of South Carolina
not more than $3,750,000, if the State enters into an
agreement with the Secretary providing that the State shall
perform all future operation of the St. Stephen, South
Carolina, fish lift (including associated studies to assess
the efficacy of the fish lift).
(2) Contents.--The agreement shall specify the terms and
conditions under which payment will be made and the rights
of, and remedies available to, the Secretary to recover all
or a portion of the payment if the State suspends or
terminates operation of the fish lift or fails to perform the
operation in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.
(3) Maintenance.--Maintenance of the fish lift shall remain
a Federal responsibility.
(g) Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas.--The project for
flood control and navigation, Trinity River and tributaries,
Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091), is modified to add environmental
restoration as a project purpose.
(h) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.--
(1) Acceptance of funds.--In any fiscal year that the Corps
of Engineers does not receive appropriations sufficient to
meet expected project expenditures for that year, the
Secretary shall accept from the city of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for purposes of the project for beach erosion
control and hurricane protection, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4136), such funds as the
city may advance for the project.
(2) Repayment.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall repay, without interest,
the amount of any advance made under paragraph (1), from
appropriations that may be provided by Congress for river and
harbor, flood control, shore protection, and related
projects.
(i) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, after the date of enactment of
this Act, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be
obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under
paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated
December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for
the project for navigation, southern branch of Elizabeth
River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
(j) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia.--The
Secretary may permit the non-Federal interests for the
project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia, to
[[Page 3372]]
pay without interest the remaining non-Federal cost over a
period not to exceed 30 years, to be determined by the
Secretary.
(k) Miami Dade Agricultural and Rural Land Retention Plan
and South Biscayne, Florida.--Section 528(b)(3) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3768) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Credit and reimbursement of past and future
activities.--The Secretary may afford credit to or reimburse
the non-Federal sponsors (using funds authorized by
subparagraph (C)) for the reasonable costs of any work that
has been performed or will be performed in connection with a
study or activity meeting the requirements of subparagraph
(A) if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that--
``(I) the work performed by the non-Federal sponsors will
substantially expedite completion of a critical restoration
project; and
``(II) the work is necessary for a critical restoration
project; and
``(ii) the credit or reimbursement is granted pursuant to a
project-specific agreement that prescribes the terms and
conditions of the credit or reimbursement.''.
(l) Lake Michigan, Illinois.--
(1) In general.--The project for storm damage reduction and
shoreline protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette,
Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by
section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to provide for
reimbursement for additional project work undertaken by the
non-Federal interest.
(2) Credit or reimbursement.--The Secretary shall credit or
reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share of
project costs incurred by the non-Federal interest in
designing, constructing, or reconstructing reach 2F (700 feet
south of Fullerton Avenue and 500 feet north of Fullerton
Avenue), reach 3M (Meigs Field), and segments 7 and 8 of
reach 4 (43rd Street to 57th Street), if the non-Federal
interest carries out the work in accordance with plans
approved by the Secretary, at an estimated total cost of
$83,300,000.
(3) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the Federal share of project costs
incurred by the non-Federal interest in reconstructing the
revetment structures protecting Solidarity Drive in Chicago,
Illinois, before the signing of the project cooperation
agreement, at an estimated total cost of $7,600,000.
(m) Measurements of Lake Michigan Diversions, Illinois.--
Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4253) is amended by striking ``$250,000 per
fiscal year for each fiscal year beginning after September
30, 1986'' and inserting ``a total of $1,250,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2003''.
(n) Project for Navigation, Dubuque, Iowa.--The project for
navigation at Dubuque, Iowa, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482), is modified to
authorize the development of a wetland demonstration area of
approximately 1.5 acres to be developed and operated by the
Dubuque County Historical Society or a successor nonprofit
organization.
(o) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.--The Secretary may
credit against the non-Federal share work performed in the
project area of the Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee,
Mississippi River, Louisiana, authorized by section 401(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4117).
(p) Jackson County, Mississippi.--The project for
environmental infrastructure, Jackson County, Mississippi,
authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and modified by
section 504 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3757), is modified to direct the Secretary to
provide a credit, not to exceed $5,000,000, against the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs
incurred by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors since
February 8, 1994, in constructing the project, if the
Secretary determines that such costs are for work that the
Secretary determines was compatible with and integral to the
project.
(q) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, the Secretary shall convey to the State of South
Carolina all right, title, and interest of the United States
in the parcels of land described in subparagraph (B) that are
currently being managed by the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes
for the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina,
project authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1966 and
modified by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
(2) Land description.--
(A) In general.--The parcels of land to be conveyed are
described in Exhibits A, F, and H of Army Lease No. DACW21-1-
93-0910 and associated supplemental agreements or are
designated in red in Exhibit A of Army License No. DACW21-3-
85-1904, excluding all designated parcels in the license that
are below elevation 346 feet mean sea level or that are less
than 300 feet measured horizontally from the top of the power
pool.
(B) Management of excluded parcels.--Management of the
excluded parcels shall continue in accordance with the terms
of Army License No. DACW21-3-85-1904 until the Secretary and
the State enter into an agreement under subparagraph (F).
(C) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the
land shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary, with the cost of the survey borne by the State.
(3) Costs of conveyance.--The State shall be responsible
for all costs, including real estate transaction and
environmental compliance costs, associated with the
conveyance.
(4) Perpetual status.--
(A) In general.--All land conveyed under this paragraph
shall be retained in public ownership and shall be managed in
perpetuity for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in
accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary.
(B) Reversion.--If any parcel of land is not managed for
fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in accordance with the
plan, title to the parcel shall revert to the United States.
(5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance as the Secretary considers appropriate to
protect the interests of the United States.
(6) Fish and wildlife mitigation agreement.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may pay the State of South
Carolina not more than $4,850,000 subject to the Secretary
and the State entering into a binding agreement for the State
to manage for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in
perpetuity the lands conveyed under this paragraph and
excluded parcels designated in Exhibit A of Army License No.
DACW21-3-85-1904.
(B) Failure of performance.--The agreement shall specify
the terms and conditions under which payment will be made and
the rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal
Government to recover all or a portion of the payment if the
State fails to manage any parcel in a manner satisfactory to
the Secretary.
(r) Land Conveyance, Clarkston, Washington.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Port of
Clarkston, Washington, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a portion of the land described in
the Department of the Army lease No. DACW68-1-97-22,
consisting of approximately 31 acres, the exact boundaries of
which shall be determined by the Secretary and the Port of
Clarkston.
(2) Additional land.--The Secretary may convey to the Port
of Clarkston, Washington, at fair market value as determined
by the Secretary, such additional land located in the
vicinity of Clarkston, Washington, as the Secretary
determines to be excess to the needs of the Columbia River
Project and appropriate for conveyance.
(3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances made under
subsections (a) and (b) shall be subject to such terms and
conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
protect the interests of the United States, including a
requirement that the Port of Clarkston pay all administrative
costs associated with the conveyances, including the cost of
land surveys and appraisals and costs associated with
compliance with applicable environmental laws (including
regulations).
(4) Use of land.--The Port of Clarkston shall be required
to pay the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary,
of any land conveyed pursuant to subsection (a) that is not
retained in public ownership or is used for other than public
park or recreation purposes, except that the Secretary shall
have a right of reverter to reclaim possession and title to
any such land.
(s) White River, Indiana.--The project for flood control,
Indianapolis on West Fork of the White River, Indiana,
authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes'',
approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688), as
modified by section 323 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to undertake the riverfront alterations described
in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, dated
February 1994, for the Canal Development (Upper Canal
feature) and the Beveridge Paper feature, at a total cost not
to exceed $25,000,000, of which $12,500,000 is the estimated
Federal cost and $12,500,000 is the estimated non-Federal
cost, except that no such alterations may be undertaken
unless the Secretary determines that the alterations
authorized by this subsection, in combination with the
alterations undertaken under section 323 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), are
economically justified.
(t) Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence, Rhode
Island.--The project for hurricane-flood protection, Fox
Point, Providence, Rhode Island, authorized by section 203 of
the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 306) is modified to
direct the Secretary to undertake the necessary repairs to
the barrier, as identified in the Condition Survey and
Technical Assessment dated April 1998
[[Page 3373]]
with Supplement dated August 1998, at a total cost of
$3,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $1,950,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,050,000.
SEC. 103. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area 9
feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-acre anchorage area 6 feet
deep, located on the west side of Johnsons River,
Connecticut, is not authorized after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Bass Harbor, Maine.--
(1) Deauthorization.--The portions of the project for
navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962,
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33
U.S.C. 577) described in paragraph (2) are not authorized
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Description.--The portions of the project referred to
in paragraph (1) are described as follows:
(A) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00,
E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet along
the northern limit of the project to a point, N149061.55,
E538550.11, thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a
point, N148477.64, E538817.18, thence running southwesterly
about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the
project, N148348.50, E538737.02, thence running northerly
about 149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to
a bend in the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running
northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly limit of
the project to the point of origin.
(B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the
project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running southeasterly
about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence
running southerly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86,
E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about 91.92 feet to
a point on the westerly limit of the project, N147927.84,
E538648.39, thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along
the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.
(c) Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The project for navigation,
Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the Act of July 25,
1912 (37 Stat. 201, chapter 253), is not authorized after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(d) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--Section 364 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3731) is amended
by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
``(9) East boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for
navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the
first section of the Act entitled `An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657).''.
SEC. 104. STUDIES.
(a) Caddo Levee, Red River Below Denison Dam, Arizona,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.--The Secretary shall conduct
a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking a project
for flood control, Caddo Levee, Red River Below Denison Dam,
Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, including
incorporating the existing levee, along Twelve Mile Bayou
from its juncture with the existing Red River Below Denison
Dam Levee approximately 26 miles upstream to its terminus at
high ground in the vicinity of Black Bayou, Louisiana.
(b) Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, California.--
The Secretary--
(1) shall conduct a study for the project for navigation,
Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California,
to a depth of minus 35 feet (MLLW), and for that purpose may
use any feasibility report prepared by the non-Federal
sponsor under section 203 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) for which reimbursement of the
Federal share of the study is authorized subject to the
availability of appropriations; and
(2) may carry out the project under section 107 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), if the
Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
(c) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
restoring Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California, and the
Federal interest in environmental restoration, conservation
of fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and water
quality.
(d) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of
Lancaster, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a study
to determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to
construct the West Side Storm Water Retention Facility in the
city of Lancaster, California.
(e) Apalachicola River, Florida.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study for the purpose of identifying--
(1) alternatives for the management of material dredged in
connection with operation and maintenance of the Apalachicola
River Navigation Project; and
(2) alternatives that reduce the requirements for such
dredging.
(f) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades,
Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of constructing a sand bypassing project at
the Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
(g) City of Destin-Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of--
(1) restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as a
breakwater for Destin Harbor; and
(2) including Noriega Point as part of the East Pass,
Florida, navigation project.
(h) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to reduce
the flooding problems in the vicinity of Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area, Florida.
(2) Studies and reports.--The study shall include a review
and consideration of studies and reports completed by the
non-Federal interests.
(i) City of Plant City, Florida.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of a flood control project in the
city of Plant City, Florida.
(2) Studies and reports.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall review and consider studies and reports
completed by the non-Federal interests.
(j) Goose Creek Watershed, Oakley, Idaho.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
undertaking flood damage reduction, water conservation,
ground water recharge, ecosystem restoration, and related
purposes along the Goose Creek watershed near Oakley, Idaho.
(k) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
assuming operations and maintenance for the Acadiana
Navigation Channel located in Iberia and Vermillion Parishes,
Louisiana.
(l) Cameron Parish West of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of a storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project
for Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
(m) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, Coastal
Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of using dredged material from maintenance
activities at Federal navigation projects in coastal
Louisiana to benefit coastal areas in the State.
(n) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of assuming the maintenance at Contraband Bayou, Calcasieu
River Ship Canal, Louisiana.
(o) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of converting
the Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock to be
included in the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection
Project, Louisiana.
(p) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef
Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem
restoration and protection measures along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur to Sabine River,
Louisiana.
(2) Matters to be addressed.--The study shall address
saltwater intrusion, tidal scour, erosion, and other water
resources related problems in that area.
(q) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St.
Charles Parish Pumps.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the Lake Pontchartrain
Hurricane Protection Project to include the St. Charles
Parish Pumps and the modification of the seawall fronting
protection along Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish, from
New Basin Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal on the east.
(r) Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Seawall Restoration,
Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of undertaking structural modifications of
that portion of the seawall fronting protection along the
south shore of Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, extending approximately 5 miles from the new basin
Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the
east as a part of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity
Hurricane Protection Project, authorized by section 204 of
the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077).
(s) Detroit River, Michigan, Greenway Corridor Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of a project for shoreline
protection, frontal erosion, and associated purposes in the
Detroit River shoreline area from the Belle Isle Bridge to
the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, Michigan.
(2) Potential modifications.--As a part of the study, the
Secretary shall review potential project modifications to any
existing Corps projects within the same area.
(t) St. Clair Shores Flood Control, Michigan.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of constructing a flood control project at St. Clair Shores,
Michigan.
(u) Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan, and Toledo Harbor,
Ohio.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility
[[Page 3374]]
of utilizing dredged material from Toledo Harbor, Ohio, to
provide erosion reduction, navigation, and ecosystem
restoration at Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan.
(v) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing an outlet weir at
Tunica Lake, Tunica County, Mississippi, and Lee County,
Arkansas, for the purpose of stabilizing water levels in the
Lake.
(2) Economic analysis.--In carrying out the study, the
Secretary shall include as a part of the economic analysis
the benefits derived from recreation uses at the Lake and
economic benefits associated with restoration of fish and
wildlife habitat.
(w) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri,
Riverfront Area.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the optimal plan to protect facilities that are
located on the Mississippi River riverfront within the
boundaries of St. Louis, Missouri.
(2) Requirements.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall--
(A) evaluate alternatives to offer safety and security to
facilities; and
(B) use state-of-the-art techniques to best evaluate the
current situation, probable solutions, and estimated costs.
(3) Report.--Not later than April 15, 1999, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study.
(x) Yellowstone River, Montana.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive
study of the Yellowstone River from Gardiner, Montana to the
confluence of the Missouri River to determine the hydrologic,
biological, and socioeconomic cumulative impacts on the
river.
(2) Consultation and coordination.--The Secretary shall
conduct the study in consultation with the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey,
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service and with the
full participation of the State of Montana and tribal and
local entities, and provide for public participation.
(3) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress on the results of the study.
(y) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study of water resources located in the Las
Vegas Valley, Nevada.
(2) Objectives.--The study shall identify problems and
opportunities related to ecosystem restoration, water
quality, particularly the quality of surface runoff, water
supply, and flood control.
(z) Oswego River Basin, New York.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing
a flood forecasting system within the Oswego River basin, New
York.
(aa) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and
Environmental Restoration Study.--
(1) Navigation study.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study of navigation needs at the Port of New
York-New Jersey (including the South Brooklyn Marine and Red
Hook Container Terminals, Staten Island, and adjacent areas)
to address improvements, including deepening of existing
channels to depths of 50 feet or greater, that are required
to provide economically efficient and environmentally sound
navigation to meet current and future requirements.
(2) Environmental restoration study.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, shall review the report of
the Chief of Engineers on the New York Harbor, printed in the
House Management Plan of the Harbor Estuary Program, and
other pertinent reports concerning the New York Harbor Region
and the Port of New York-New Jersey, to determine the Federal
interest in advancing harbor environmental restoration.
(3) Report.--The Secretary may use funds from the ongoing
navigation study for New York and New Jersey Harbor to
complete a reconnaissance report for environmental
restoration by December 31, 1999. The navigation study to
deepen New York and New Jersey Harbor shall consider
beneficial use of dredged material.
(bb) Bank Stabilization, Missouri River, North Dakota.--
(1) Study.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of bank stabilization on the
Missouri River between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe in
North Dakota.
(B) Elements.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall
study--
(i) options for stabilizing the erosion sites on the banks
of the Missouri River between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe
identified in the report developed by the North Dakota State
Water Commission, dated December 1997, including
stabilization through nontraditional measures;
(ii) the cumulative impact of bank stabilization measures
between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe on fish and wildlife
habitat and the potential impact of additional stabilization
measures, including the impact of nontraditional
stabilization measures;
(iii) the current and future effects, including economic
and fish and wildlife habitat effects, that bank erosion is
having on creating the delta at the beginning of Lake Oahe;
and
(iv) the impact of taking no additional measures to
stabilize the banks of the Missouri River between the
Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe.
(C) Interested parties.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, seek the
participation and views of interested Federal, State, and
local agencies, landowners, conservation organizations, and
other persons.
(D) Report.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on
the results of the study not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(ii) Status.--If the Secretary cannot complete the study
and report to Congress by the day that is 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, by that
day, report to Congress on the status of the study and
report, including an estimate of the date of completion.
(2) Effect on existing projects.--This subsection does not
preclude the Secretary from establishing or carrying out a
stabilization project that is authorized by law.
(cc) Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
undertaking repairs and related navigation improvements at
Dike 14, Cleveland, Ohio.
(dd) East Lake, Vermillion and Chagrin, Ohio.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking flood damage
reduction at East Lake, Vermillion and Chagrin, Ohio.
(2) Ice retention structure.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary may consider construction of an ice retention
structure as a potential means of providing flood damage
reduction.
(ee) Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ohio.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of undertaking navigation improvements at Toussaint River,
Carroll Township, Ohio.
(ff) Santee Delta Wetland Habitat, South Carolina.--Not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall complete a comprehensive study of the
ecosystem in the Santee Delta focus area of South Carolina to
determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to enhance
the wetland habitat in the area.
(gg) Waccamaw River, South Carolina.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a flood
control project for the Waccamaw River in Horry County, South
Carolina.
(hh) Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, Pennsylvania, Watershed
Management and Restoration Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of a comprehensive flood plain
management and watershed restoration project for the Upper
Susquehanna-Lackawanna Watershed, Pennsylvania.
(2) Geographic information system.--In conducting the
study, the Secretary shall use a geographic information
system.
(3) Plans.--The study shall formulate plans for
comprehensive flood plain management and environmental
restoration.
(4) Crediting.--Non-Federal interests may receive credit
for in-kind services and materials that contribute to the
study. The Secretary may credit non-Corps Federal assistance
provided to the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal
share of study costs to the maximum extent authorized by law.
(ii) Niobrara River and Missouri River Sedimentation Study,
South Dakota.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall
Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine
the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion,
sedimentation, and related problems in the lower Niobrara
River and the Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.
(jj) Santa Clara River, Utah.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to
alleviate damage caused by flooding, bank erosion, and
sedimentation along the watershed of the Santa Clara River,
Utah, above the Gunlock Reservoir.
(2) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of
watershed conditions and water quality, as related to
flooding and bank erosion, along the Santa Clara River in the
vicinity of the town of Gunlock, Utah.
(kk) Agat Small Boat Harbor, Guam.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking
the repair and reconstruction of Agat Small Boat Harbor,
Guam, including the repair of existing shore protection
measures and construction or a revetment of the breakwater
seawall.
(ll) Apra Harbor Seawall, Guam.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking
measures to repair, upgrade, and extend the seawall
protecting Apra Harbor, Guam, and to ensure continued access
to the harbor via Route 11B.
[[Page 3375]]
(mm) Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking
measures to upgrade the piers and fuel transmission lines at
the fuel piers in the Apra Harbor, Guam, and measures to
provide for erosion control and protection against storm
damage.
(nn) Maintenance Dredging of Harbor Piers, Guam.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of Federal maintenance of areas adjacent to piers at harbors
in Guam, including Apra Harbor, Agat Harbor, and Agana
Marina.
(oo) Alternative Water Sources Study.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct a study of the water supply
needs of States that are not currently eligible for
assistance under title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et
seq.).
(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
(A) identify the water supply needs (including potable,
commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural needs)
of each State described in paragraph (1) through 2020, making
use of such State, regional, and local plans, studies, and
reports as are available;
(B) evaluate the feasibility of various alternative water
source technologies such as reuse and reclamation of
wastewater and stormwater (including indirect potable reuse),
aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination to meet the
anticipated water supply needs of the States; and
(C) assess how alternative water sources technologies can
be utilized to meet the identified needs.
(3) Report.--The Administrator shall report to Congress on
the results of the study not more than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--
(1) Authorization.--The Secretary may carry out a program
to reduce flood hazards and restore the natural functions and
values of riverine ecosystems throughout the United States.
(2) Studies.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary
shall conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage
reduction, conservation, and restoration measures and may
design and implement watershed management and restoration
projects.
(3) Participation.--The studies and projects carried out
under the program shall be conducted, to the extent
practicable, with the full participation of the appropriate
Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of
the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Department of Commerce.
(4) Nonstructural approaches.--The studies and projects
shall, to the extent practicable, emphasize nonstructural
approaches to preventing or reducing flood damages.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
(1) Studies.--The cost of studies conducted under
subsection (a) shall be shared in accordance with section 105
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 Stat.
2215).
(2) Projects.--The non-Federal interests shall pay 35
percent of the cost of any project carried out under this
section.
(3) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal interests shall
provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material
disposal areas, and relocations necessary for the projects.
The value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations shall be credited
toward the payment required under this subsection.
(4) Responsibilities of the non-federal interests.--The
non-Federal interests shall be responsible for all costs
associated with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing,
and rehabilitating all projects carried out under this
section.
(c) Project Justification.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may implement a project
under this section if the Secretary determines that the
project--
(A) will significantly reduce potential flood damages;
(B) will improve the quality of the environment; and
(C) is justified considering all costs and beneficial
outputs of the project.
(2) Selection criteria; policies and procedures.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall--
(A) develop criteria for selecting and rating the projects
to be carried out as part of the program authorized by this
section; and
(B) establish policies and procedures for carrying out the
studies and projects undertaken under this section.
(d) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary may not implement
a project under this section until--
(1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a written notification describing the project
and the determinations made under subsection (c); and
(2) a period of 21 calendar days has expired following the
date on which the notification was received by the
Committees.
(e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage
reductions at appropriate locations, including--
(1) Le May, Missouri;
(2) the upper Delaware River basin, New York;
(3) Tillamook County, Oregon;
(4) Providence County, Rhode Island; and
(5) Willamette River basin, Oregon.
(f) Per-Project Limitation.--Not more than $25,000,000 in
Army Civil Works appropriations may be expended on any single
project undertaken under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $75,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2000 and 2001.
(2) Program funding levels.--All studies and projects
undertaken under this authority from Army Civil Works
appropriations shall be fully funded within the program
funding levels provided in this subsection.
SEC. 202. SHORE PROTECTION.
Section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Costs of constructing'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Construction.--Costs of constructing''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Periodic nourishment.--In the case of a project
authorized for construction after December 31, 1999, or for
which a feasibility study is completed after that date, the
non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment of projects or
measures for shore protection or beach erosion control shall
be 50 percent, except that--
``(A) all costs assigned to benefits to privately owned
shores (where use of such shores is limited to private
interests) or to prevention of losses of private land shall
be borne by non-Federal interests; and
``(B) all costs assigned to the protection of federally
owned shores shall be borne by the United States.''.
SEC. 203. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of
small projects'' and inserting ``implementation of small
structural and nonstructural projects''; and
(2) in the third sentence, by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$7,000,000''.
SEC. 204. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING AND
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON FLOODS AND FLOOD
DAMAGES.
Section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
709a(b)) is amended in the third sentence by inserting before
the period at the end the following: ``, but the Secretary of
the Army may accept funds voluntarily contributed by such
entities for the purpose of expanding the scope of the
services requested by the entities''.
SEC. 205. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Subparagraphs (B) and (C)(i) of section 528(b)(3) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) are
amended by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2000''.
SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 206(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Construction'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Construction''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
SEC. 207. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
SEC. 208. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS.
Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), is
amended by inserting ``or environmental restoration'' after
``flood control''.
SEC. 209. RECREATION USER FEES.
(a) Withholding of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--During fiscal years 1999 through 2002, the
Secretary may withhold from the special account established
under section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 percent of
the amount of receipts above a baseline of $34,000,000 per
each fiscal year received from fees imposed at recreation
sites under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department
of the Army
[[Page 3376]]
under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(b)).
(2) Use.--The amounts withheld shall be retained by the
Secretary and shall be available, without further Act of
appropriation, for expenditure by the Secretary in accordance
with subsection (b).
(3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall remain
available until September 30, 2005.
(b) Use of Amounts Withheld.--In order to increase the
quality of the visitor experience at public recreational
areas and to enhance the protection of resources, the amounts
withheld under subsection (a) may be used only for--
(1) repair and maintenance projects (including projects
relating to health and safety);
(2) interpretation;
(3) signage;
(4) habitat or facility enhancement;
(5) resource preservation;
(6) annual operation (including fee collection);
(7) maintenance; and
(8) law enforcement related to public use.
(c) Availability.--Each amount withheld by the Secretary
shall be available for expenditure, without further Act of
appropriation, at the specific project from which the amount,
above baseline, is collected.
SEC. 210. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC
REGION.
Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3747) is amended by striking ``interest of
navigation'' and inserting ``interests of water resources
development (including navigation, flood damage reduction,
and environmental restoration)''.
SEC. 211. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Middle mississippi river.--The term ``middle
Mississippi River'' means the reach of the Mississippi River
from the mouth of the Ohio River (river mile 0, upper
Mississippi River) to the mouth of the Missouri River (river
mile 195).
(2) Missouri river.--The term ``Missouri River'' means the
main stem and floodplain of the Missouri River (including
reservoirs) from its confluence with the Mississippi River at
St. Louis, Missouri, to its headwaters near Three Forks,
Montana.
(3) Project.--The term ``project'' means the project
authorized by this section.
(b) Protection and Enhancement Activities.--
(1) Plan.--
(A) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for
a project to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of
the Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River.
(B) Activities.--
(i) In general.--The plan shall provide for such activities
as are necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat without adversely affecting--
(I) the water-related needs of the region surrounding the
Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River, including
flood control, navigation, recreation, and enhancement of
water supply; and
(II) private property rights.
(ii) Required activities.--The plan shall include--
(I) modification and improvement of navigation training
structures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;
(II) modification and creation of side channels to protect
and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;
(III) restoration and creation of island fish and wildlife
habitat;
(IV) creation of riverine fish and wildlife habitat;
(V) establishment of criteria for prioritizing the type and
sequencing of activities based on cost-effectiveness and
likelihood of success; and
(VI) physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the
success of the project, to be performed by the River Studies
Center of the United States Geological Survey in Columbia,
Missouri.
(2) Implementation of activities.--
(A) In general.--Using funds made available to carry out
this section, the Secretary shall carry out the activities
described in the plan.
(B) Use of existing authority for unconstructed features of
the project.--Using funds made available to the Secretary
under other law, the Secretary shall design and construct any
feature of the project that may be carried out using the
authority of the Secretary to modify an authorized project,
if the Secretary determines that the design and construction
will--
(i) accelerate the completion of activities to protect and
enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the Missouri River or
the middle Mississippi River; and
(ii) be compatible with the project purposes described in
this section.
(c) Integration of Other Activities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the activities described
in subsection (b), the Secretary shall integrate the
activities with other Federal, State, and tribal activities.
(2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new
regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity
that carries out any activity authorized by this section.
(d) Public Participation.--In developing and carrying out
the plan and the activities described in subsection (b), the
Secretary shall provide for public review and comment in
accordance with applicable Federal law, including--
(1) providing advance notice of meetings;
(2) providing adequate opportunity for public input and
comment;
(3) maintaining appropriate records; and
(4) compiling a record of the proceedings of meetings.
(e) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the
activities described in subsections (b) and (c), the
Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal law,
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of the project shall be 35 percent.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 1
activity described in subsection (b) shall not exceed
$5,000,000.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and
maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of
carrying out activities under this section $30,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
SEC. 212. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.
(a) Sand, Gravel, and Shell.--Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B))
is amended in the second sentence by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``or any other non-Federal
interest subject to an agreement entered into under section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b)''.
(b) Reimbursement for Local Interests.--Any amounts paid by
non-Federal interests for beach erosion control, hurricane
protection, shore protection, or storm damage reduction
projects as a result of an assessment under section 8(k) of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k))
shall be fully reimbursed.
SEC. 213. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
Section 312(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.''.
SEC. 214. BENEFIT OF PRIMARY FLOOD DAMAGES AVOIDED INCLUDED
IN BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.
Section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2318) is amended--
(1) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking
``Benefit-Cost Analysis'' and inserting ``Elements Excluded
From Cost-Benefit Analysis'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as
subsections (c) through (f), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The
Secretary shall include primary flood damages avoided in the
benefit base for justifying Federal nonstructural flood
damage reduction projects.''; and
(4) in the first sentence of subsection (e) (as
redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking ``(b)'' and
inserting ``(d)''.
SEC. 215. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH.
Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33
U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Arundo dona,'' after ``water-
hyacinth,''; and
(2) by inserting ``tarmarix'' after ``melaleuca''.
SEC. 216. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(19) Lake tahoe, california and nevada.--Regional water
system for Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.
``(20) Lancaster, california.--Fox Field Industrial
Corridor water facilities, Lancaster, California.
``(21) San ramon, california.--San Ramon Valley recycled
water project, San Ramon, California.''.
SEC. 217. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3756) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking paragraph (10) and inserting the following:
``(10) Regional Atlanta Watershed, Atlanta, Georgia, and
Lake Lanier of Forsyth and Hall Counties, Georgia.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.
``(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
``(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay watershed,
California.
``(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.
``(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Nevada.
``(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
``(20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.
``(21) Walker River basin, Nevada.
``(22) Bronx River watershed, New York.
``(23) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
[[Page 3377]]
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b)
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for
any project undertaken under this section, with the consent
of the affected local government, a non-Federal interest may
include a nonprofit entity.''.
SEC. 218. LAKES PROGRAM.
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4148) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (15), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end;
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt
and aquatic growth and development of a sustainable weed and
algae management program;
``(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, New Hampshire, removal of
excessive aquatic vegetation; and
``(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, removal of
excessive aquatic vegetation.''.
SEC. 219. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION POLICY.
Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2239 note; Public Law 102-580) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies selected
for demonstration at the pilot scale shall result in
practical end-use products.
``(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary shall
assist the project to ensure expeditious completion by
providing sufficient quantities of contaminated dredged
material to conduct the full-scale demonstrations to stated
capacity.''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section a total of $22,000,000
to complete technology testing, technology commercialization,
and the development of full scale processing facilities
within the New York/New Jersey Harbor.''.
SEC. 220. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
(a) In General.--Section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is amended in the
first sentence by striking ``50'' and inserting ``35''.
(b) Great Lakes Basin.--The Secretary shall work with the
State of Ohio, other Great Lakes States, and political
subdivisions of the States to fully implement and maximize
beneficial reuse of dredged material as provided under
section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976
(33 U.S.C. 426j).
SEC. 221. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended by inserting after the
second sentence the following: ``Not more than 80 percent of
the non-Federal share of such first costs may be in kind,
including a facility, supply, or service that is necessary to
carry out the enhancement project.''.
SEC. 222. REIMBURSEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.
Section 211(e)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking
``subject to amounts being made available in advance in
appropriations Acts'' and inserting ``subject to the
availability of appropriations''.
SEC. 223. NATIONAL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TASK FORCE.
(a) Definition of Task Force.--In this section, the term
``Task Force'' means the National Contaminated Sediment Task
Force established by section 502 of the National Contaminated
Sediment Assessment and Management Act (33 U.S.C. 1271 note;
Public Law 102-580).
(b) Convening.--The Secretary and the Administrator shall
convene the Task Force not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(c) Reporting on Remedial Action.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall submit to
Congress a report on the status of remedial actions at
aquatic sites in the areas described in paragraph (2).
(2) Areas.--The report under paragraph (1) shall address
remedial actions in--
(A) areas of probable concern identified in the survey of
data regarding aquatic sediment quality required by section
503(a) of the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and
Management Act (33 U.S.C. 1271);
(B) areas of concern within the Great Lakes, as identified
under section 118(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(f));
(C) estuaries of national significance identified under
section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1330);
(D) areas for which remedial action has been authorized
under any of the Water Resources Development Acts; and
(E) as appropriate, any other areas where sediment
contamination is identified by the Task Force.
(3) Activities.--Remedial actions subject to reporting
under this subsection include remedial actions under--
(A) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) or other
Federal or State law containing environmental remediation
authority;
(B) any of the Water Resources Development Acts;
(C) section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344); or
(D) section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151,
chapter 425).
(4) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
provide, with respect to each remedial action described in
the report, a description of--
(A) the authorities and sources of funding for conducting
the remedial action;
(B) the nature and sources of the sediment contamination,
including volume and concentration, where appropriate;
(C) the testing conducted to determine the nature and
extent of sediment contamination and to determine whether the
remedial action is necessary;
(D) the action levels or other factors used to determine
that the remedial action is necessary;
(E) the nature of the remedial action planned or
undertaken, including the levels of protection of public
health and the environment to be achieved by the remedial
action;
(F) the ultimate disposition of any material dredged as
part of the remedial action;
(G) the status of projects and the obstacles or barriers to
prompt conduct of the remedial action; and
(H) contacts and sources of further information concerning
the remedial action.
SEC. 224. GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.
(a) Strategic Plans.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall report to Congress on a plan for programs of
the Corps of Engineers in the Great Lakes basin.
(2) Contents.--The plan shall include details of the
projected environmental and navigational projects in the
Great Lakes basin, including--
(A) navigational maintenance and operations for commercial
and recreational vessels;
(B) environmental restoration activities;
(C) water level maintenance activities;
(D) technical and planning assistance to States and
remedial action planning committees;
(E) sediment transport analysis, sediment management
planning, and activities to support prevention of excess
sediment loadings;
(F) flood damage reduction and shoreline erosion
prevention;
(G) all other activities of the Corps of Engineers; and
(H) an analysis of factors limiting use of programs and
authorities of the Corps of Engineers in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act in the Great Lakes basin,
including the need for new or modified authorities.
(b) Great Lakes Biohydrological Information.--
(1) Inventory.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall request each
Federal agency that may possess information relevant to the
Great Lakes biohydrological system to provide an inventory of
all such information in the possession of the agency.
(B) Relevant information.--For the purpose of subparagraph
(A), relevant information includes information on--
(i) ground and surface water hydrology;
(ii) natural and altered tributary dynamics;
(iii) biological aspects of the system influenced by and
influencing water quantity and water movement;
(iv) meteorological projections and weather impacts on
Great Lakes water levels; and
(v) other Great Lakes biohydrological system data relevant
to sustainable water use management.
(2) Report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the States, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies, and after
requesting information from the provinces and the federal
government of Canada, shall--
(i) compile the inventories of information;
(ii) analyze the information for consistency and gaps; and
(iii) submit to Congress, the International Joint
Commission, and the Great Lakes States a report that includes
recommendations on ways to improve the information base on
the biohydrological dynamics of the Great Lakes ecosystem as
a whole, so as to support environmentally sound decisions
regarding diversions and consumptive uses of Great Lakes
water.
(B) Recommendations.--The recommendations in the report
under subparagraph (A) shall include recommendations relating
to the resources and funds necessary for implementing
improvement of the information base.
(C) Considerations.--In developing the report under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation, and
other
[[Page 3378]]
relevant agencies as appropriate, shall consider and report
on the status of the issues described and recommendations
made in--
(i) the Report of the International Joint Commission to the
Governments of the United States and Canada under the 1977
reference issued in 1985; and
(ii) the 1993 Report of the International Joint Commission
to the Governments of Canada and the United States on Methods
of Alleviating Adverse Consequences of Fluctuating Water
Levels in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Basin.
(c) Great Lakes Recreational Boating.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall, using information and studies in existence on the date
of enactment of this Act to the maximum extent practicable,
and in cooperation with the Great Lakes States, submit to
Congress a report detailing the economic benefits of
recreational boating in the Great Lakes basin, particularly
at harbors benefiting from operation and maintenance projects
of the Corps of Engineers.
(d) Cooperation.--In undertaking activities under this
section, the Secretary shall--
(1) encourage public participation; and
(2) cooperate, and, as appropriate, collaborate, with Great
Lakes States, tribal governments, and Canadian federal,
provincial, tribal governments.
(e) Water Use Activities and Policies.--The Secretary may
provide technical assistance to the Great Lakes States to
develop interstate guidelines to improve the consistency and
efficiency of State-level water use activities and policies
in the Great Lakes basin.
(f) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary may seek and accept funds
from non-Federal entities to be used to pay up to 25 percent
of the cost of carrying out subsections (b), (c), (d), and
(e).
SEC. 225. PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
Section 1135(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Control of sea lamprey.--Congress finds that--
``(A) the Great Lakes navigation system has been
instrumental in the spread of sea lamprey and the associated
impacts to its fishery; and
``(B) the use of the authority under this subsection for
control of sea lamprey at any Great Lakes basin location is
appropriate.''.
SEC. 226. WATER QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, RECREATION,
FISH AND WILDLIFE, FLOOD CONTROL, AND
NAVIGATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may investigate, study,
evaluate, and report on--
(1) water quality, environmental quality, recreation, fish
and wildlife, flood control, and navigation in the western
Lake Erie watershed, including the watersheds of the Maumee
River, Ottawa River, and Portage River in the States of
Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan; and
(2) measures to improve water quality, environmental
quality, recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control, and
navigation in the western Lake Erie basin.
(b) Cooperation.--In carrying out studies and
investigations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies and
nongovernmental organizations to ensure full consideration of
all views and requirements of all interrelated programs that
those agencies may develop independently or in coordination
with the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 227. IRRIGATION DIVERSION PROTECTION AND FISHERIES
ENHANCEMENT ASSISTANCE.
The Secretary may provide technical planning and design
assistance to non-Federal interests and may conduct other
site-specific studies to formulate and evaluate fish screens,
fish passages devices, and other measures to decrease the
incidence of juvenile and adult fish inadvertently entering
into irrigation systems. Measures shall be developed in
cooperation with Federal and State resource agencies and not
impair the continued withdrawal of water for irrigation
purposes. In providing such assistance priority shall be
given based on the objectives of the Endangered Species Act,
cost-effectiveness, and the potential for reducing fish
mortality. Non-Federal interests shall agree by contract to
contribute 50 percent of the cost of such assistance. Not
more than one-half of such non-Federal contribution may be
made by the provision of services, materials, supplies, or
other in-kind services. No construction activities are
authorized by this section. Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall report
to Congress on fish mortality caused by irrigation water
intake devices, appropriate measures to reduce mortality, the
extent to which such measures are currently being employed in
the arid States, the construction costs associated with such
measures, and the appropriate Federal role, if any, to
encourage the use of such measures.
SEC. 228. SMALL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.
Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g),
is amended by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting
``$3,000,000''.
SEC. 229. SHORE DAMAGE PREVENTION OR MITIGATION.
Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C.
426(i)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting ``(a) In General.--The Secretary'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The costs'' and
inserting the following:
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The costs'';
(3) in the third sentence--
(A) by striking ``No such'' and inserting the following:
``(c) Requirement for Specific Authorization.--No such'';
and
(B) by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting
``$5,000,000''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) coordinate the implementation of the measures under
this section with other Federal and non-Federal shore
protection projects in the same geographic area; and
``(2) to the extent practicable, combine mitigation
projects with other shore protection projects in the same
area into a comprehensive regional project.''.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. DREDGING OF SALT PONDS IN THE STATE OF RHODE
ISLAND.
The Secretary may acquire for the State of Rhode Island a
dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to dredge
approximately 100 cubic yards per hour for use by the State
in dredging salt ponds in the State.
SEC. 302. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW
YORK.
Section 567(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3787) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) The Chemung River watershed, New York, at an
estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000.''.
SEC. 303. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3668) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (22) as
paragraphs (16) through (23), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following:
``(15) Repaupo creek and delaware river, gloucester county,
new jersey.--Project for tidegate and levee improvements for
Repaupo Creek and the Delaware River, Gloucester County, New
Jersey.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) Irondequoit creek, new york.--Project for flood
control, Irondequoit Creek watershed, New York.
``(25) Tioga county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood
control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their
tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.''.
SEC. 304. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
Section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3669) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (12) as
paragraphs (10) through (13), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--Project
for navigation for Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, New
Jersey.''.
SEC. 305. STREAMBANK PROTECTION PROJECTS.
(a) Arctic Ocean, Barrow, Alaska.--The Secretary shall
evaluate and, if justified under section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), carry out storm damage
reduction and coastal erosion measures at the town of Barrow,
Alaska.
(b) Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.--The Secretary may
construct appropriate control structures in areas along the
Saginaw River in the city of Bay City, Michigan, under
authority of section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33
Stat. 701r).
(c) Yellowstone River, Billings, Montana.--The streambank
protection project at Coulson Park, along the Yellowstone
River, Billings, Montana, shall be eligible for assistance
under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r).
(d) Monongahela River, Point Marion, Pennsylvania.--The
Secretary shall evaluate and, if justified under section 14
of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), carry out
streambank erosion control measures along the Monongahela
River at the borough of Point Marion, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 306. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, SPRINGFIELD, OREGON.
(a) In General.--Under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (33 Stat. 2309a) or other applicable
authority, the Secretary shall conduct measures to address
water quality, water flows and fish habitat restoration in
the historic Springfield, Oregon, millrace through the
reconfiguration of the existing millpond, if the Secretary
determines that harmful impacts have occurred as the result
of a previously constructed flood control project by the
Corps of Engineers.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share, excluding
lands, easements, rights-of-
[[Page 3379]]
way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations, shall
be 25 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000.
SEC. 307. GUILFORD AND NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall expeditiously complete the activities
authorized under section 346 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4858), including
activities associated with Sluice Creek in Guilford,
Connecticut, and Lighthouse Point Park in New Haven,
Connecticut.
SEC. 308. FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH.
(a) Redesignation.--The project for flood control, Eight
Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4112) and known as ``Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas'',
shall be known and designated as the ``Francis Bland Floodway
Ditch''.
(b) Legal References.--Any reference in any law, map,
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
States to the project and creek referred to in subsection (a)
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Francis Bland
Floodway Ditch.
SEC. 309. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.
Section 528(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3770) is amended in the first sentence by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
including potential land acquisition in the Caloosahatchee
River basin or other areas''.
SEC. 310. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control and other
purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of
the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the ``Flood
Control Act of 1936'') (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake, as a
separate part of the project, restoration of the historic
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal substantially in accordance with
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park,
Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design Analysis, dated
February 1998, at a total cost of $15,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,750,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,250,000.
(b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest for the
restoration project under subsection (a)--
(1) may provide all or a portion of the non-Federal share
of project costs in the form of in-kind services; and
(2) shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
project costs for design and construction work performed by
the non-Federal interest before execution of a project
cooperation agreement and for land, easements, and rights-of-
way required for the restoration and acquired by the non-
Federal interest before execution of such an agreement.
(c) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation and
maintenance of the restoration project under subsection (a)
shall be the full responsibility of the National Park
Service.
SEC. 311. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.
Section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33
U.S.C. 426h), is amended by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including the city of Miami Beach,
Florida''.
SEC. 312. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from the State
of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount, as determined
under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the
water supply cost obligation of the State under Contract No.
DACW56-74-JC-0314 for water supply storage at Sardis
Reservoir, Oklahoma.
(b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be paid by the
State of Oklahoma under subsection (a) shall be subject to
adjustment in accordance with accepted discount purchase
methods for Government properties as determined by an
independent accounting firm designated by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
(c) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall otherwise affect
any of the rights or obligations of the parties to the
contract referred to in subsection (a).
SEC. 313. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY
SYSTEM NAVIGATION MODERNIZATION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) exports are necessary to ensure job creation and an
improved standard of living for the people of the United
States;
(2) the ability of producers of goods in the United States
to compete in the international marketplace depends on a
modern and efficient transportation network;
(3) a modern and efficient waterway system is a
transportation option necessary to provide United States
shippers a safe, reliable, and competitive means to win
foreign markets in an increasingly competitive international
marketplace;
(4) the need to modernize is heightened because the United
States is at risk of losing its competitive edge as a result
of the priority that foreign competitors are placing on
modernizing their own waterway systems;
(5) growing export demand projected over the coming decades
will force greater demands on the waterway system of the
United States and increase the cost to the economy if the
system proves inadequate to satisfy growing export
opportunities;
(6) the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River and
Illinois River waterway system were built in the 1930s and
have some of the highest average delays to commercial tows in
the country;
(7) inland barges carry freight at the lowest unit cost
while offering an alternative to truck and rail
transportation that is environmentally sound, is energy
efficient, is safe, causes little congestion, produces little
air or noise pollution, and has minimal social impact; and
(8) it should be the policy of the Corps of Engineers to
pursue aggressively modernization of the waterway system
authorized by Congress to promote the relative competitive
position of the United States in the international
marketplace.
(b) Preconstruction Engineering and Design.--In accordance
with the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Study, the Secretary shall proceed immediately to
prepare engineering design, plans, and specifications for
extension of locks 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 on the Mississippi
River and the LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the Illinois
River, to provide lock chambers 110 feet in width and 1,200
feet in length, so that construction can proceed immediately
upon completion of studies and authorization of projects by
Congress.
SEC. 314. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MANAGEMENT.
Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 652) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``(e)'' and all that follows through the
end of paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(e) Undertakings.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, is authorized to
undertake--
``(i) a program for the planning, construction, and
evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement; and
``(ii) implementation of a program of long-term resource
monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and
applied research.
``(B) Requirements for projects.--Each project carried out
under subparagraph (A)(i) shall--
``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, simulate natural
river processes;
``(ii) include an outreach and education component; and
``(iii) on completion of the assessment under subparagraph
(D), address identified habitat and natural resource needs.
``(C) Advisory committee.--In carrying out subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall create an independent technical
advisory committee to review projects, monitoring plans, and
habitat and natural resource needs assessments.
``(D) Habitat and natural resource needs assessment.--
``(i) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake
a systemic, river reach, and pool scale assessment of habitat
and natural resource needs to serve as a blueprint to guide
habitat rehabilitation and long-term resource monitoring.
``(ii) Data.--The habitat and natural resource needs
assessment shall, to the maximum extent practicable, use data
in existence at the time of the assessment.
``(iii) Timing.--The Secretary shall complete a habitat and
natural resource needs assessment not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this subparagraph.
``(2) Reports.--On December 31, 2005, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the Secretary shall
prepare and submit to Congress a report that--
``(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in
paragraph (1);
``(B) describes the accomplishments of each program;
``(C) includes results of a habitat and natural resource
needs assessment; and
``(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the
authorization under paragraph (1) or the authorized
appropriations under paragraphs (3), (4), and (5).'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(i)''; and
(ii) by striking ``Secretary not to exceed'' and all that
follows and inserting ``Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000
for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.'';
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(ii)''; and
(ii) by striking ``$7,680,000'' and all that follows and
inserting ``$10,420,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2009.'';
(D) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the
following:
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1)(C) not to
exceed $350,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
``(6) Transfer of amounts.--
[[Page 3380]]
``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year beginning after
September 30, 1992, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer appropriated
amounts between the programs under clauses (i) and (ii) of
paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (1)(C).
``(B) Apportionment of costs.--In carrying out paragraph
(1)(D), the Secretary may apportion the costs equally between
the programs authorized by paragraph (1)(A).''; and
(E) in paragraph (7)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``paragraph (1)(A)''; and
(II) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and, in the case of any project requiring non-
Federal cost sharing, the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project shall be 35 percent''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B)
and (1)(C) of this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)(ii)'';
(2) in subsection (f)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A)''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) St. Louis Area Urban Wildlife Habitat.--The Secretary
shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry out restoration
of urban wildlife habitat, with a special emphasis on the
establishment of greenways in the St. Louis, Missouri, area
and surrounding communities.''.
SEC. 315. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND
SNAKE RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.
Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(16 U.S.C. 3301 note; Public Law 104-303) is amended by
striking subsection (a) and all that follows and inserting
the following:
``(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of
Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary shall
accelerate ongoing research and development activities, and
may carry out or participate in additional research and
development activities, for the purpose of developing
innovative methods and technologies for improving the
survival of salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia/Snake
River Basin.
``(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research and
development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may
include research and development related to--
``(A) impacts from water resources projects and other
impacts on salmon life cycles;
``(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
``(C) light and sound guidance systems;
``(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
``(E) transportation mechanisms; and
``(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.
``(3) Additional activities.--Additional research and
development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may
include research and development related to--
``(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in spawning and
rearing areas;
``(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and adult salmon
survival;
``(C) impacts on salmon life cycles from sources other than
water resources projects;
``(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and formation of a
germ plasm repository for threatened and endangered
populations of native fish; and
``(E) other innovative technologies and actions intended to
improve fish survival, including the survival of resident
fish.
``(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate any
activities carried out under this subsection with appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes,
and the Northwest Power Planning Council.
``(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the research and development activities
carried out under this subsection, including any
recommendations of the Secretary concerning the research and
development activities.
``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out research and
development activities under paragraph (3).
``(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts toward
developing and installing in Corps of Engineers-operated dams
innovative, efficient, and environmentally safe hydropower
turbines, including design of fish-friendly turbines, for use
on the Columbia/Snake River hydrosystem.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $35,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River
System Native Fishes.--
``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with the
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, and
consistent with a management plan to be developed by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary shall
carry out methods to reduce nesting populations of avian
predators on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out research and
development activities under this subsection.
``(d) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the
research and development carried out under this section or
any other law.''.
SEC. 316. NINE MILE RUN HABITAT RESTORATION, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary may credit against the non-Federal share such
costs as are incurred by the non-Federal interests in
preparing environmental and other preconstruction
documentation for the habitat restoration project, Nine Mile
Run, Pennsylvania, if the Secretary determines that the
documentation is integral to the project.
SEC. 317. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall work with the Secretary of
Transportation on a proposed solution to carry out the
project to maintain the Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur,
California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).
SEC. 318. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT-RESPONSE MODELING
SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may study and implement a
Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System for the
Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River watershed, Iowa.
(b) Study.--The study shall include--
(1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic, geomorphic,
environmental, economic, social, and recreational impacts of
operating strategies within the watershed;
(2) creation of an integrated, dynamic flood impact model;
and
(3) the development of a rapid response system to be used
during flood and emergency situations.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit a
report to Congress on the results of the study and modeling
system and such recommendations as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated a total of $2,250,000 to carry out this
section.
SEC. 319. STUDY REGARDING INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR SMALL AND
MEDIUM-SIZED PORTS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study and analysis of various alternatives
for innovative financing of future construction, operation,
and maintenance of projects in small and medium-sized ports.
(b) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the results of the study and
any related legislative recommendations for consideration by
Congress.
SEC. 320. CANDY LAKE PROJECT, OSAGE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market value''
means the amount for which a willing buyer would purchase and
a willing seller would sell a parcel of land, as determined
by a qualified, independent land appraiser.
(2) Previous owner of land.--The term ``previous owner of
land'' means a person (including a corporation) that
conveyed, or a descendant of a deceased individual who
conveyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for use in the Candy
Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
(b) Land Conveyances.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey, in accordance
with this section, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land acquired by the United
States for the Candy Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
(2) Previous owners of land.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall give a previous owner
of land first option to purchase the land described in
paragraph (1).
(B) Application.--
(i) In general.--A previous owner of land that desires to
purchase the land described in paragraph (1) that was owned
by the previous owner of land, or by the individual from whom
the previous owner of land is descended, shall file an
application to purchase the land with the Secretary not later
than 180 days after the official date of notice to the
previous owner of land under subsection (c).
(ii) First to file has first option.--If more than 1
application is filed for a parcel of land described in
paragraph (1), first options to purchase the parcel of land
shall be allotted in the order in which applications for the
parcel of land were filed.
(C) Identification of previous owners of land.--As soon as
practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, identify each
previous owner of land.
(D) Consideration.--Consideration for land conveyed under
this subsection shall be the fair market value of the land.
[[Page 3381]]
(3) Disposal.--Any land described in paragraph (1) for
which an application has not been filed under paragraph
(2)(B) within the applicable time period shall be disposed of
in accordance with law.
(4) Extinguishment of Easements.--All flowage easements
acquired by the United States for use in the Candy Lake
project in Osage County, Oklahoma, are extinguished.
(c) Notice.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall notify--
(A) each person identified as a previous owner of land
under subsection (b)(2)(C), not later than 90 days after
identification, by United States mail; and
(B) the general public, not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, by publication in the Federal
Register.
(2) Contents of notice.--Notice under this subsection shall
include--
(A) a copy of this section;
(B) information sufficient to separately identify each
parcel of land subject to this section; and
(C) specification of the fair market value of each parcel
of land subject to this section.
(3) Official date of notice.--The official date of notice
under this subsection shall be the later of--
(A) the date on which actual notice is mailed; or
(B) the date of publication of the notice in the Federal
Register.
SEC. 321. SALCHA RIVER AND PILEDRIVER SLOUGH, FAIRBANKS,
ALASKA.
The Secretary shall evaluate and, if justified under
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), carry out flood damage reduction measures along the
lower Salcha River and on Piledriver Slough, from its
headwaters at the mouth of the Salcha River to the Chena
Lakes Flood Control Project, in the vicinity of Fairbanks,
Alaska, to protect against surface water flooding.
SEC. 322. EYAK RIVER, CORDOVA, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall evaluate and, if justified under
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), carry out flood damage reduction measures along the
Eyak River at the town of Cordova, Alaska.
SEC. 323. NORTH PADRE ISLAND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT.
The Secretary shall carry out a project for ecosystem
restoration and storm damage reduction at North Padre Island,
Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, at a total estimated cost of
$30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,500,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,500,000, if the
Secretary finds that the work is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
SEC. 324. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS.
(a) Water Supply.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the
State of Kansas or another non-Federal interest, shall
complete a water supply reallocation study at the project for
flood control, Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, as a basis on which
the Secretary shall enter into negotiations with the State of
Kansas or another non-Federal interest for the terms and
conditions of a reallocation of the water supply.
(2) Options.--The negotiations for storage reallocation
shall include the following options for evaluation by all
parties:
(A) Financial terms of storage reallocation.
(B) Protection of future Federal water releases from
Kanopolis Dam, consistent with State water law, to ensure
that the benefits expected from releases are provided.
(C) Potential establishment of a water assurance district
consistent with other such districts established by the State
of Kansas.
(D) Protection of existing project purposes at Kanopolis
Dam to include flood control, recreation, and fish and
wildlife.
(b) In-Kind Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may negotiate a credit for a
portion of the financial repayment to the Federal Government
for work performed by the State of Kansas, or another non-
Federal interest, on land adjacent or in close proximity to
the project, if the work provides a benefit to the project.
(2) Work included.--The work for which credit may be
granted may include watershed protection and enhancement,
including wetland construction and ecosystem restoration.
SEC. 325. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.
Section 552(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3780) is amended by striking ``for the
project to be carried out with such assistance'' and
inserting ``, or a public entity designated by the State
director, to carry out the project with such assistance,
subject to the project's meeting the certification
requirement of subsection (c)(1)''.
SEC. 326. CITY OF CHARLEVOIX REIMBURSEMENT, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall review and, if consistent with
authorized project purposes, reimburse the city of
Charlevoix, Michigan, for the Federal share of costs
associated with construction of the new revetment connection
to the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor,
Michigan.
SEC. 327. HAMILTON DAM FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary may construct the Hamilton Dam flood control
project, Michigan, under authority of section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
SEC. 328. HOLES CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, OHIO.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the non-Federal share of project costs for the project
for flood control, Holes Creek, Ohio, shall not exceed the
sum of--
(1) the total amount projected as the non-Federal share as
of September 30, 1996, in the Project Cooperation Agreement
executed on that date; and
(2) 100 percent of the amount of any increases in the cost
of the locally preferred plan over the cost estimated in the
Project Cooperation Agreement.
(b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest any amount paid by the non-Federal interest
in excess of the non-Federal share.
SEC. 329. OVERFLOW MANAGEMENT FACILITY, RHODE ISLAND.
Section 585(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended by striking ``river'' and
inserting ``sewer''.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join other members
of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in introducing the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This measure, similar to water
resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1996, is
comprised of water resources project and study authorizations and
policy modifications for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
program.
The bill we are proposing today is virtually identical to legislation
that was approved unanimously by the Senate last October. That measure,
S. 2131, was sent to the House late in the previous Congress and,
despite and best efforts of our colleagues in the other body, went no
further. As such, it is our desire to advance this year's bill as
expeditiously as possible.
We have carefully reviewed each item within the bill and have
included those that are consistent with the committee's traditional
authorization criteria. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here
to discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the Committee
to judge project authorization requests.
On November 17, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. Importantly, the 1986 act marked an
end to the 16-year deadlock between Congress and the Executive Branch
regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works program.
In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 act resolved
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps
and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental
requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which Federal
involvement is appropriate and warranted.
The criteria used to develop the legislation before us are consistent
with the reforms and procedures established in the landmark Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
Is a project for flood control, navigation or some other purpose
cost-shared in a manner consistent with the 1986 act?
Have all of the requisite reports and studies on economic,
engineering and environmental feasibility been completed for a project?
Is a project consistent with the traditional and appropriate mission
of the Army Corps?
Should the federal government be involved?
These, Mr. President, are the fundamental questions that we have
applied to each and every project included here for authorization.
This legislation, only slightly modified from last year's Senate-
passed bill, authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct some 36
projects for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration.
The bill also modifies 43 existing Army Corps projects and authorizes
29 project studies. In total, this bill authorizes an estimated federal
cost of 2.1 billion dollars. The only significant changes in this
year's version are that we have extracted projects authorized in the
FT99 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
Mr. President, this legislation includes other project-specific and
general provisions related to Army Corps operations. Among them are two
provisions sought by Senator Bond and others to enhance the environment
along
[[Page 3382]]
the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. We have also included a modified
version of the Administration's so-called Challenge 21 initiative to
encourage more non-structural flood control and environmental projects.
In addition, we are recommending that the cost-sharing formula be
changed for maintenance of future shoreline protection projects.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to indicate that we have encouraged
our colleagues in the House of Representatives to try to resolve their
differences on the proposed Sacramento, California, flood control
project. It seems to me that there are legitimate concerns and issues
on both sides, but I am optimistic that they will reach an agreement. I
stand ready to do whatever I can to facilitate a successful resolution.
This legislation is vitally important for countless states and
communities across the country. For economic and life-safety reasons,
we must maintain our harbors, ports and inland waterways, our flood
control levees and shorelines, and the environment. I ask for the
cooperation of colleagues so that we can swiftly complete this
unfinished business from 1998. It would be my strong desire to complete
action on this bill within the next several weeks so that we can
prepare for WRDA 2000.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 509. A bill to amend the Peace Corps Act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 to carry out that
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
Peace Corps Act Amendments
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Peace Corps
and to join with my colleague Senator Paul Coverdell to introduce
legislation to make technical modifications to the Peace Corps Act.
The changes made by this legislation are purely technical and largely
designed to remove certain outmoded restrictions on Peace Corps
activities. I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a section-by-section analysis of this bill at the conclusion of my
remarks.
Now let me turn to the general subject of the Peace Corps as today is
the thirty eighth anniversary of its establishment. Thirty eight years
ago, a young President recognized the power that American ingenuity,
idealism and, most of all, volunteerism could have on the lives of
people around the world. In order to harness that energy, President
Kennedy formed a small army, not of soldiers to make war, but of
volunteers to build peace through mutual understanding.
Since its inception in 1961, more than 151,000 Peace Corps volunteers
have battled against the scourges of malnutrition, illiteracy and
economic underdevelopment in 132 countries around the world. I can
speak with some personal experience about the Peace Corps as I have had
the privilege to serve as a volunteer. In fact, slightly more than
thirty years ago, I arrived back in the United States after spending
two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in a rural village in the
Dominican Republic. Like many who heeded President Kennedy's call to do
something larger than ourselves, to be a part of something greater than
our own existence, my service in the Peace Corps remains one of the
most important periods in my life.
When I served in the Peace Corps, nearly all of us volunteers had
similar experiences. We worked in small isolated villages with little
in the way of modern conveniences. The world since that time has
changed and the Peace Corps has been evolving to meet new demands.
Today's volunteers specialize in education, the environment, small
business, agriculture and other fields. In 1996, the Peace Corps
developed a ``Crisis Corps'' to provide short term emergency and
humanitarian assistance in situations ranging from natural disasters to
refugee crises. While many volunteers continue to live in remote
villages, this is no longer an iron clad rule. Some now labor in urban
areas, passing on the skills needed to start and run businesses.
The more than 6,500 volunteers who today serve in 87 nations are a
more diverse group than the one I joined three decades ago. When I
served, the Corps was mostly male and mostly young. Today, however,
nearly sixty percent of all volunteers are women, a quarter are over
29, and six percent are over fifty. While the face and methods of the
Peace Corps have changed over the years, its goal has remained
constant: to help people of other countries meet their needs for
trained personnel; to help promote understanding of the American people
by those we serve; and to help promote better understanding among the
American people about the world beyond our borders.
By building bridges between the United States and other countries,
the Peace Corps advances our foreign policy by communicating America's
values and ideas to other peoples around the globe.
It is an indication of the success of the Peace Corps that, while the
current class of volunteers is providing new services and working in
countries never served before, the demand continues to outpace supply.
We need only look at a newspaper, Mr. President, to see where Peace
Corps volunteers are needed. In the Caribbean countries ravaged by
Hurricane Georges and Mitch, in formerly war-torn areas of Africa and
in countries where the skills needed to start a business have been
nearly erased by decades of communist rule. In order to meet these
needs, Congress and President Clinton have set the admirable goal of
reaching 10,000 Peace Corps volunteers by 2000.
The Peace Corps, Mr. President, stands as an example of what is great
about the United States. Our volunteerism, humanity and sense of
justice are proudly displayed in the face of each volunteer we send
overseas. And every time I meet volunteers about to embark on their two
years of service, I share their sense of excitement. If each of us, in
our daily lives, work in the same spirit as those volunteers--helping
those around us and sharing the values of our nation--the United States
will indeed have a proud and bright future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary and the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was orderd printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 509
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS
2000 THROUGH 2003 TO CARRY OUT THE PEACE CORPS
ACT.
Section 3(b) of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2502(b)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry
out the purposes of this Act $270,000,000 for fiscal year
2000, $298,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $327,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and $365,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
``(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraph
(1) for a fiscal year are authorized to remain available for
that fiscal year and the subsequent fiscal year.''.
SEC. 2. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE PEACE CORPS ACT.
(a) International Travel.--Section 15(d) of such Act (22
U.S.C. 2514(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) the transportation of Peace Corps employees, Peace
Corps volunteers, dependents of such employees and
volunteers, and accompanying baggage, by a foreign air
carrier when the transportation is between two places outside
the United States without regard to section 40118 of title
49, United States Code.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--(1) Section 5(f)(1)(B) of such
Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(f)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``Civil
Service Commission'' and inserting ``Office of Personnel
Management''.
(2) Section 5(h) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(h)) is amended
by striking ``the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 (5
U.S.C. 2171 et seq.)'' and all that follows through ``(31
U.S.C. 492a),'' and inserting ``section 3342 of title 31,
United States Code, section 5732 and''.
(3) Section 5(j) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(j)) is amended
by striking ``section 1757 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States'' and all that follows and inserting ``section
3331 of title 5, United States Code.''.
(4) Section 10(a)(4) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2509(a)(4)) is
amended by striking ``31 U.S.C. 665(b)'' and inserting
``section 1342 of title 31, United States Code''.
[[Page 3383]]
(5) Section 15(c) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2514(c)) is
amended by striking ``Public Law 84-918 (7 U.S.C. 1881 et
seq.)'' and inserting ``subchapter VI of chapter 33 of title
5, United States Code''.
(6) Section 15(d)(2) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2514(d)(2)) is
amended by striking ``section 9 of Public Law 60-328 (31
U.S.C. 673)'' and inserting ``section 1346 of title 31,
United States Code''.
(7) Section 15(d)(6) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2514(d)(6)) is
amended by striking ``without regard to section 3561 of the
Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 543)''.
(8) Section 15(d)(11) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2514(d)(11)),
as amended by this section, is further amended by striking
``Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.)'' and inserting ``Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 3901 et seq.)''.
____
Section-by-Section Analysis
sec. 1. authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through
2003 to carry out the peace corps act
This section amends the Peace Corps Act to provide the
following authorizations of appropriations: Fiscal Year
2000--$270 million, Fiscal Year 2001--$298 million, Fiscal
Year 2002--$327 million, Fiscal Year 2003--$365 million. The
Committee understands that these amounts are consistent with
Office of Management & Budget and Peace Corps estimates of
amounts required to meet the 10,000 volunteer target by the
end of Fiscal Year 2003. The Committee also understands that
these amounts are already part of the Administration's
outyear projections for Fiscal Years 2001-2003.
sec. 2. miscellaneous amendments to the peace corps act
Section 2(a) adds a new paragraph (13) to subsection
15(d).1
[Footnote] The new paragraph would exempt the Peace Corps
from 49 U.S.C. 40118 with respect to flights between two
points abroad to the same extent other foreign service
agencies are exempt from that section.
[Footnote] 122 U.S.C. subsection 2214(d).
Under 49 U.S.C. subsection 40118(d), the Department of
State and the Agency for International Development (AID) are
exempt from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 40118 for travel
between two places outside the United States by employees and
their dependents. Determining which carriers overseas are
U.S. certified or have agreements with the U.S. that qualify
them under section 40118 is a complex undertaking. Posts and
individuals must make decisions in this area at the risk of
having their travel costs disallowed. The Committee believes
that administrative provisions affecting foreign service
agencies should be as consistent as possible. For instance, a
Peace Corps employee who is flying with an AID employee to
attend a meeting should be able to fly on the same plane
without fear of being penalized under section 40118. This
provision would extend to Peace Corps employees and
Volunteers the same treatment now available to other foreign
service agency employees.
Section 2(b) makes technical changes to sections 5, 10 and
15 of the Peace Corps Act (hereinafter the Act) to reflect
changes in statutory citations that have occurred since
enactment of the Act.
Section 2(b)(1) strikes out `Civil Service Commission' in
section 5(f)(1)(B) and inserts in lieu thereof `Office of
Personnel Management.' The Civil Service Commission was
replaced by the Office of Personnel Management in 1966.
Section 2(b)(2) amends section 5(h) of the Act (22 U.S.C.
2504(h)) in several respects. It strikes out references to
the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 (5 U.S.C. 2171 et
seq.), the Act of June 4, 1954, chapter 264, section 4 (5
U.S.C. 73b-5, the Act of December 23, 1944, chapter 716,
section 1, as amended (31 U.S.C. 492a) and inserts references
to 5 U.S.C. 5732 and 31 U.S.C. 3342. The Federal Voting
Assistance Act has been repealed and replaced by a provision
(42 U.S.C. 1973cc et seq.) which is available to all American
citizens overseas. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider
Volunteers federal employees to provide them with the
benefits of the Act; therefore, the reference to voter
assistance in this provision can be deleted. The replacement
of references to sections of titles 5 and 31 with references
to 5 U.S.C. 5732 and 31 U.S.C. 3342 reflect recodification of
provisions relating to reimbursement for the cost of
transportation of baggage and effects, and check cashing
privileges in those titles. No substantive change is
involved.
Section 2(b)(3) replaces the reference to `section 1757 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended (5
U.S.C. 16)' with `section 3331 of title 5, United States
Code,' reflecting the codification of the statutory oath for
employees in 1966.
Section 2(b)(4) replaces the reference to 31 U.S.C. 665(b)
with `31 U.S.C. 1342,' reflecting the 1982 revision of title
31.
Section 2(b)(5) amends section 15(c)2
[Footnote] by striking out `Public Law 84-918 (7 U.S.C.
1881 et seq.)' and inserting in lieu thereof subchapter VI of
chapter 33, title 5, United States Code (5 U.S.C. 3371 et
seq.).' Section 15(c) of the Peace Corps Act authorizes
training for employees at private and public agencies. The
statutory provisions relating to employee training were
transferred from title 7 to title 5 in 1970.
[Footnote] 222 U.S.C. subsection 2514(c).
Section 2(b)(6) amends paragraph 15(d)(2)3
[Footnote] by striking out `section 9 of Public Law 60-328
(31 U.S.C. 673)' and inserts in lieu thereof 31 U.S.C. 1346.'
This section of the Peace Corps Act authorizes the payment of
expenses to attend meetings related to the Peace Corps Act.
No substantive change is intended. It is another change
required by the 1982 revision of title 31.
[Footnote] 322 U.S.C. subsection 2514(d)(2).
Section 2(b)(7) strikes out `without regard to section 3561
of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 543)'. This statute, which
contained a restriction on currency exchanges, has been
repealed and apparently was not replaced.
Section 2(b)(8) strikes out `Foreign Service Act of 1946,
as amended (22 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)' and inserts in lieu
thereof: `Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C.
3901 et seq.)'. The Foreign Service Act was rewritten and
renamed in 1980.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and my colleagues in the House, in
introducing a reauthorization of the Peace Corps Act. This legislation
authorizes a 12 percent increase for the fiscal year Peace Corps budget
and is part of a multi-year plan to enable the Peace Corps to reach its
goal of 10,000 volunteers. Reaching this level has been a long standing
goal--set into law in 1985--and I am pleased that this legislation
would accomplish this as the Peace Corps readies to enter the 21st
century.
As former Director of the Peace Corps, I have learned first-hand of
the tremendous impact that the relatively small amount we spend on the
Peace Corps has throughout the world. Not only does the Peace Corps
continue to be a cost effective tool for providing assistance and
developing stronger ties with the international community, it has also
trained over 150,000 Americans in the cultures and languages of
countries around the world. Returned volunteers often use these skills
and experiences to contribute to myriad sectors of our society--
government, business, education, health, and social services, just to
name a few. What a rich resource the Peace Corps is for the United
States as the world grows closer.
Peace Corps volunteers continue to provide unique leadership around
the world by representing the finest characteristics of the American
people: a strong work ethic, generosity of spirit, and a commitment to
service. The interpersonal nature of the Peace Corps has allowed
volunteers to establish a collective record of public service that is
well respected and recognized in all corners of the world.
Several Members of Congress, including Senator Dodd, have contributed
to this legacy of service and volunteerism. I believe they have
experienced the value of the Peace Corps and its commitment to serving
others, and I am certain that my colleague from Connecticut would
consider this Peace Corps experience invaluable to his work today. As I
have said before and I think it deserves repeating, virtually every
ambassador and official representative I have met from countries with
volunteers is an enthusiastic supporter of the Peace Corps. They all
have viewed the Peace Corps as the most successful program of its kind.
Mr. President, I believe that the time is right to expand the number
of Peace Corps volunteers. As the needs of people in developing
countries continue to grow, so too does the number of enthusiastic
Americans desiring to serve. Over the last 4 years, the number of
Americans requesting information about joining the Peace Corps
increased by almost 40 percent. Yet, during the same period, the Peace
Corps has only been able to support a 2 percent-increase in volunteers.
In addition, the Peace Corps has taken steps to streamline agency
operations to channel more resources in support of additional
volunteers. Headquarter staffing has been reduced 13 percent since
1993. Five of 16 domestic recruiting offices and 13 country programs
have been closed since fiscal year 1996. Financial savings in basic
business operations have been achieved by realigning the headquarters
organization and improving overseas financial operations. The sum of
all the financial savings have contributed to a 14 percent-reduction in
the average cost per volunteer (in constant dollars) since 1993.
[[Page 3384]]
Today, nearly 6,700 volunteers serve in 80 countries around the
world, working with local communities to build a better future. This
increase in Volunteers will help the Peace Corps expand in areas such
as the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Africa as well as in Jordan, China,
Bangladesh, and Mozambique. Increased funding will also help expand the
work of the ``Crisis Corps,'' a group of experienced Peace Corps
volunteers who have the necessary background to make valuable
contributions in emergency situations. Crisis Corp volunteers, by the
way, are serving today in Central America, assisting the region in its
recovery from the terrible devastation of Hurricane Mitch.
Finally, this proposed authorization will serve to strengthen the
Peace Corps as it prepares to enter the 21st century, putting it on the
firm footing it needs and deserves. I firmly believe that a rejuvenated
Peace Corps will help ensure that America continues to be an engaged
world leader, and that we continue to share with other countries our
own legacy of freedom, independence, and prosperity. This is an
investment in our country and our world that we need to make.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Gorton, and Mr. Grams):
S. 510. A bill to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over
public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to
preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal
lands surrounding those public lands and acquired lands; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the american land sovereignty protection act
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues, Senators Craig, Kyl, Crapo, Gorton, and Grams who are
original cosponsors of the bill.
This bill enforces our position as strong supporters of American
public lands and private property rights, and is based upon legislation
which I introduced in the 105th Congress, S. 2098. Since then I have
received input from Coloradans and revised the bill accordingly, as I
am concerned about the setting aside of public lands by the federal
government for international agreements and oversight.
The absence of congressional oversight in such programs as the United
Nations Biosphere Reserve is of special concern to me. The United
Nations has designated 47 Biosphere Reserves in the United States which
contain a total area greater than the size of my home state of
Colorado.
The United Nations remains the only multi-national body to share
perspectives on a global scale. The United States, as the leading
economic and military world power, should maintain an influential role.
However, the intrusive implications of the U.N. Biosphere Reserve
program have created a problem that must be addressed by the Congress.
A Biosphere Reserve is a federally-zoned and coordinated region that
could prohibit certain uses of private lands outside of the designated
international area. The executive branch is agreeing to manage the
designated area in accordance with an underlying agreement which may
have implications on non-federal land outside the affected area. For
example, when residents of Arkansas discovered a plan by the United
Nations and the administration to advance a proposed Ozark Highland Man
and Biosphere Reserve without public input, the plan was withdrawn in
the face of public pressure. This type of stealth tactic to accommodate
international interests does not serve the needs and desires of the
American people. Rather, it is an encroachment by the Executive branch
on congressional authority.
We are facing a threat to our sovereignty by the creation of these
land reserves in our public lands. I also believe the rights of private
landowners must be protected if these international land designations
are made. Even more disturbing is the fact the executive branch elected
to be a party to this ``Biosphere Reserve'' program without the
approval of Congress or the American people. The absence of
congressional oversight in this area is a serious concern.
In fact most of these international land reserves have been created
with minimal, if any, congressional input or oversight or public
consultation. The current system for implementing international land
reserves diminishes the power and sovereignty of the Congress to
exercise its constitutional power to make laws that govern lands
belonging to the United States. Congress must protect individual
property owners, local communities, and state sovereignty which may be
adversely impacted economically by any such international agreements.
As policymaking authority is further centralized by the executive
branch at the federal level, the role of ordinary citizens in the
making of this policy through their elected representatives is
diminished. The administration has allowed some of America's most
symbolic monuments of freedom, such as the Statue of Liberty and
Independence Hall to be listed as World Heritage Sites. Furthermore the
United Nations has listed national parks including Yellowstone National
Park--our nation's first national park--as a World Heritage Site.
Federal legislation is needed to require the specific approval of
Congress before any area within the borders of the United States is
made part of an international land reserve. My bill reasserts Congress'
Constitutional role in the creation of rules and regulations governing
lands belonging to the United States and its people.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record and
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 510
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is
vested in the Congress under article IV, section 3, of the
Constitution.
(2) Some Federal land designations made pursuant to
international agreements concern land use policies and
regulations for lands belonging to the United States which
under article IV, section 3, of the Constitution can only be
implemented through laws enacted by the Congress.
(3) Some international land designations, such as those
under the United States Biosphere Reserve Program and the Man
and Biosphere Program of the United Nations Scientific,
Educational, and Cultural Organization, operate under
independent national committees, such as the United States
National Man and Biosphere Committee, which have no
legislative directives or authorization from the Congress.
(4) Actions by the United States in making such
designations may affect the use and value of nearby or
intermixed non-Federal lands.
(5) The sovereignty of the States is a critical component
of our Federal system of government and a bulwark against the
unwise concentration of power.
(6) Private property rights are essential for the
protection of freedom.
(7) Actions by the United States to designate lands
belonging to the United States pursuant to international
agreements in some cases conflict with congressional
constitutional responsibilities and State sovereign
capabilities.
(8) Actions by the President in applying certain
international agreements to lands owned by the United States
diminishes the authority of the Congress to make rules and
regulations respecting these lands.
(b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To reaffirm the power of the Congress under article IV,
section 3, of the Constitution over international agreements
which concern disposal, management, and use of lands
belonging to the United States.
(2) To protect State powers not reserved to the Federal
Government under the Constitution from Federal actions
designating lands pursuant to international agreements.
(3) To ensure that no United States citizen suffers any
diminishment or loss of individual rights as a result of
Federal actions designating lands pursuant to international
agreements for purposes of imposing restrictions on use of
those lands.
[[Page 3385]]
(4) To protect private interests in real property from
diminishment as a result of Federal actions designating lands
pursuant to international agreements.
(5) To provide a process under which the United States may,
when desirable, designate lands pursuant to international
agreements.
SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN WORLD HERITAGE
SITE LISTING.
Section 401 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (Public Law 96-515; 94 Stat. 2987) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence, by--
(A) striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to
subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), the Secretary''; and
(B) inserting ``(in this section referred to as the
`Convention')'' after ``1973''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Interior may not nominate any
lands owned by the United States for inclusion on the World
Heritage List pursuant to the Convention, unless--
``(A) the Secretary finds with reasonable basis that
commercially viable uses of the nominated lands, and
commercially viable uses of other lands located within 10
miles of the nominated lands, in existence on the date of the
nomination will not be adversely affected by inclusion of the
lands on the World Heritage List, and publishes that finding;
``(B) the Secretary has submitted to the Congress a report
describing--
``(i) natural resources associated with the lands referred
to in subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) the impacts that inclusion of the nominated lands on
the World Heritage List would have on existing and future
uses of the nominated lands or other lands located within 10
miles of the nominated lands; and
``(C) the nomination is specifically authorized by a law
enacted after the date of enactment of the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act and after the date of publication
of a finding under subparagraph (A) for the nomination.
``(2) The President may submit to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the President of the Senate a proposal
for legislation authorizing such a nomination after
publication of a finding under paragraph (1)(A) for the
nomination.
``(e) The Secretary of the Interior shall object to the
inclusion of any property in the United States on the list of
World Heritage in Danger established under Article 11.4 of
the Convention, unless--
``(1) the Secretary has submitted to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President of the Senate a
report describing--
``(A) the necessity for including that property on the
list;
``(B) the natural resources associated with the property;
and
``(C) the impacts that inclusion of the property on the
list would have on existing and future uses of the property
and other property located within 10 miles of the property
proposed for inclusion; and
``(2) the Secretary is specifically authorized to assent to
the inclusion of the property on the list, by a joint
resolution of the Congress after the date of submittal of the
report required by paragraph (1).
``(f) The Secretary of the Interior shall submit an annual
report on each World Heritage Site within the United States
to the Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that
contains for the year covered by the report the following
information for the site:
``(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the
site.
``(2) A summary of Federal full time equivalent hours
related to management of the site.
``(3) A list and explanation of all nongovernmental
organizations that contributed to the management of the site.
``(4) A summary and account of the disposition of
complaints received by the Secretary related to management of
the site.''.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AND TERMINATION OF UNAUTHORIZED UNITED
NATIONS BIOSPHERE RESERVES.
Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 403. (a) No Federal official may nominate any lands
in the United States for designation as a Biosphere Reserve
under the Man and Biosphere Program of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
``(b) Any designation on or before the date of enactment of
the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of an area in
the United States as a Biosphere Reserve under the Man and
Biosphere Program of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization shall not have, and
shall not be given, any force or effect, unless the Biosphere
Reserve--
``(1) is specifically authorized by a law enacted after
that date of enactment and before December 31, 2000;
``(2) consists solely of lands that on that date of
enactment are owned by the United States; and
``(3) is subject to a management plan that specifically
ensures that the use of intermixed or adjacent non-Federal
property is not limited or restricted as a result of that
designation.
``(c) The Secretary of State shall submit an annual report
on each Biosphere Reserve within the United States to the
Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that contains
for the year covered by the report the following information
for the reserve:
``(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the
reserve.
``(2) A summary of Federal full time equivalent hours
related to management of the reserve.
``(3) A list and explanation of all nongovernmental
organizations that contributed to the management of the
reserve.
``(4) A summary and account of the disposition of the
complaints received by the Secretary related to management of
the reserve.''.
SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS IN GENERAL.
Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 404. (a) No Federal official may nominate, classify,
or designate any lands owned by the United States and located
within the United States for a special or restricted use
under any international agreement unless such nomination,
classification, or designation is specifically authorized by
law. The President may from time to time submit to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate proposals for legislation authorizing such a
nomination, classification, or designation.
``(b) A nomination, classification, or designation, under
any international agreement, of lands owned by a State or
local government shall have no force or effect unless the
nomination, classification, or designation is specifically
authorized by a law enacted by the State or local government,
respectively.
``(c) A nomination, classification, or designation, under
any international agreement, of privately owned lands shall
have no force or effect without the written consent of the
owner of the lands.
``(d) This section shall not apply to--
``(1) agreements established under section 16(a) of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4413);
and
``(2) conventions referred to in section 3(h)(3) of the
Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)).
``(e) In this section, the term `international agreement'
means any treaty, compact, executive agreement, convention,
bilateral agreement, or multilateral agreement between the
United States or any agency of the United States and any
foreign entity or agency of any foreign entity, having a
primary purpose of conserving, preserving, or protecting the
terrestrial or marine environment, flora, or fauna.''.
SEC. 6. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 401(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1(b)) is amended by
striking ``Committee on Natural Resources'' and inserting
``Committee on Resources''.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 511. A bill to amend the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act to ensure the equal right of individuals with
disabilities to vote, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act Amendments
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my
dear friend Senator John Kerry which would protect every American's
fundamental right to vote. Our bill, ``Improving Accessibility to
Voting for Disabled and Elderly Americans'' will ensure that every
citizen who wants to vote will be able to vote despite physical
disabilities.
The McCain-Kerry bill would strengthen and redefined the existing
law, ``Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped.'' As many
of my colleagues know, Congress implemented this law in 1984 in an
attempt to ensure that all Americans has access to voter registration
and polling places. At the time this was quite a progressive initiative
since it was 15 years prior to the landmark Americans with Disabilities
Act which as since helped opened the door for millions of disabled
Americans in many aspects of their lives.
As a Member of the House of Representatives, I proudly supported the
original 1984 law and was confident that it would eliminate the
barriers
[[Page 3386]]
facing millions of disabled and elderly citizens when they exercise
their basic right to vote. Unfortunately, it did not. While it was a
step in the right direction it has not completely eradicated
inaccessible polling facilities. According to the most recent Federal
Election Commission report, which relies on self-reporting by local
election officials during the 1992 election, there were at least 19,500
inaccessible polling places. This is not including 9,500 polling places
which did not file reports. And since this information is based on
self-reporting I am afraid that the actual number of inaccessible
polling places may be much higher.
It is deplorable that millions of disabled and elderly voters are not
voting because they are faced with too many obstacles, including
inaccessible polling places and ballots which are not accessible to
blind or visually impaired voters. I find it particularly disconcerning
that many of our nation's disabled veterans, the very men and women who
have sacrificed so much for our country, are unable to cast their vote
because of polling facilities which are not accessible. This is simply
wrong. The right to vote is the heat and soul of our democracy, and we
must work together to eliminate barriers preventing millions from
participating in our democracy.
As America works together for our journey into the new millennium we
must ensure that our Democracy continues to include everyone and
address the unique needs of each citizen. I am concerned about voter
turnout in the last election cycle, 1998 was the lowest since 1942--
only 36 percent of eligible voters participated. It is difficult to
have representation of the people by the people if the majority of
people are not participating.
I find this lack of participation quite disturbing, particularly as
our Nation prepares to enter the next century facing a multitude of
important issues. What is even more disturbing is the number of
citizens who wanted to participate in our election process but were
unable to because of inaccessible polling facilities. This is why I am
committed to working with Senator Kerry to get this bill passed so that
every citizen, particularly the men and women who pledged their lives,
fortunes and sacred honor to preserve and protect our Nation, can
participate in the voting process.
I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will work with us to enact
this important piece of legislation this year so that all Americans can
exercise their right to vote with dignity and respect.
This legislation is supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
American Foundation for the Blind, New Hampshire Disabilities Rights
Center, New Hampshire Developmental Disabilities Council, Granite State
Independent Living Foundation, and National Association of Protection
and Advocacy Systems. I would like to thank each of them for their
commitment to protecting the rights of disabled and elderly Americans.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that a copy of the
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection the test of the bill was to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 511
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF VOTING ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE ELDERLY
AND HANDICAPPED ACT.
(a) Purpose.--Section 2 of the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee) is amended
by--
(1) striking ``It'' and inserting ``(a) It''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(b) It is the intention of Congress in enacting this Act
to ensure that--
``(1) no individual may be denied the right to vote in a
Federal election on the basis of being disabled; and
``(2) every voter has the right to vote independently in a
Federal election.''.
(b) Accessibility of Polling Places.--Section 3 of the
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ee-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``each political
subdivision'' and all that follows through ``conducting
elections'' and inserting ``the chief election officer of the
State'';
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a polling place in
the case of any unforeseeable natural disaster such as a
fire, storm, earthquake, or flood.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) The chief election officer of a State shall ensure
that all polling methods selected and used for Federal
elections are accessible to disabled and elderly voters,
including--
``(1) the provision of ballots in a variety of accessible
media;
``(2) the provision of instructions that are printed in
large type, conspicuously displayed at each polling place;
``(3) the provision of printed information that is
generally available to other voters using a variety of
accessible media; and
``(4) ensuring that all polling methods used enable
disabled and elderly voters to cast votes at polling places
during times and under conditions of privacy available to
other voters.''.
(c) Accessibility of Registration Facilities and
Services.--Section 5(a) of the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee-3(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) registration information by telecommunications
devices for the deaf and in a variety of accessible media;
and
``(3) accessible registration procedures to allow each
eligible voter to register at the residence of the voter, by
mail, or by other means.''.
(d) Enforcement.--Section 6 of the Voting Accessibility for
the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee-4) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``45'' and inserting
``21''; and
(2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) In an action brought under subsection (a), the State
or political subdivision shall be fined an amount--
``(1) not to exceed $5,000 for the first violation of such
section; and
``(2) not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent
violation.''.
(e) Relationship With Other Laws.--Section 7 of the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ee-5) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``voting rights act of
1965'' and inserting ``other laws;
(2) by striking ``This'' and inserting ``(a) This''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to invalidate
or limit the laws of any State or political subdivision that
provide greater or equal access to registration or polling
for disabled and elderly voters.''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 8 of the Voting Accessibility for
the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee-6) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``chief election''
through ``involved'' and inserting ``Access Board'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``permanent physical
disability; and'' and inserting ``permanent disability;'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) `Access Board' means the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
792);
``(7) `chief election officer' means the State officer or
entity, designated by State law or established by practice,
responsible for elections within the State;
``(8) `independently' means without the assistance of
another individual; and
``(9) `media' includes formats using large type, braille,
sound recording, or digital text.''.
(g) References.--
(1) In general.--The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly
and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.) is amended by
striking ``handicapped'' each place it appears and inserting
``disabled''.
(2) References in other laws.--Except where inappropriate,
any reference to ``handicapped'' in relation to the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ee et seq.) in any law, Executive Order, rule, or other
document shall include a reference to ``disabled''.
(h) Conforming Amendment.--Section 502(b)(3) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792(b)(3)) is amended
by inserting before the semicolon ``and section 3 of the
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ee-1)''.
SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate
regulations implementing this Act. Such regulations shall be
consistent with the minimum guidelines established by the
Access Board.
(b) Access Board Guidelines.--Not later than 9 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Access Board shall
issue minimum guidelines relating to the requirements in the
amendments made by section 1(b) of this Act.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Access Board''
means the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board.
[[Page 3387]]
SEC. 3. TRANSITION PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date on
which regulations are promulgated under section 2(a), the
chief election officer of each State shall develop a
transition plan to ensure that polling places in the State
are in compliance with the requirements of the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ee et seq.), as amended by this Act.
(b) Coordination With Local Election Officials.--The plan
under subsection (a) shall be developed in coordination
with--
(1) local election officials; and
(2) individuals with disabilities or organizations
representing individuals with disabilities.
(c) Contents and Availability of Plan.--The plan under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) include specific recommendations necessary to comply
with the requirements of the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act; and
(2) be available for public inspection in such manner as
the chief election officer determines appropriate.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 1 of this Act shall apply
beginning on the earliest of--
(1) the date that is 6 months after the date on which
regulations are promulgated under section 2(a); or
(2) the date of the first Federal election taking place in
the State after December 31, 2000.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend John
McCain to introduce the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act, to ensure that our disabled and elderly citizens have
the same opportunity to vote as the rest of us--in private and at a
polling place. Despite the intention of a voter accessibility law
passed in 1984, many individuals with physical challenges are literally
left outside the polling place, unable to exercise their fundamental
right to vote without embarrassing themselves or relying on others to
cast their ballot for them.
As abysmally low as voter turnout is for the population as a whole,
it is estimated that the rate of voter participation by persons with
disabilities is even lower--as much as 15-20 percent according to some
surveys. Among the reasons for this gap is that polling places are not
accessible to people with physical disabilities. This is the case,
despite the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
(VAEHA) of 1984, which requires polling places to be physically
accessible to both older voters and voters with disabilities.
Unfortunately, the VAEHA does not define an ``accessible'' voting
place, nor does it place responsibility for making a voting place
accessible with any particular agency or official.
Since the 1984 act was passed, many polling places have improved
their accessibility. Nevertheless, according to the Federal Election
Commission, which tracks accessibility under the 1984 act, there were
some 19,500 inaccessible polling places in 1992--the last time for
which statistics are available. And, since the FEC report relied on
self-reporting by voting precincts, the actual number of inaccessible
polling places in likely to be even higher.
The result is that there are still too many instances where disabled
voters must resort to what is known as ``curbside voting.'' According
to a survey by the National Voter Independence Project, 47 percent of
polling places are inaccessible because they don't have a wide enough
path from the street, there are no signs directing disabled people
where to go, or stairs or narrow doorways block wheelchair access.
Disabled voters who go to inaccessible polling places are told to honk
their car horn, or ask a passerby to get the attention of the polling
official, who must then bring a ballot out to the disabled voter or
carry him or her into the voting place. Rather than face this
indignity, many disabled voters choose not to vote.
Why shouldn't they just vote by absentee ballot? Because voting is a
community event in which those without disabilities can choose to
participate. Disabled voters deserve the same voting rights as everyone
else. If they vote by absentee ballot, they should do so because they
choose to, not because they have to.
Visually impaired voters--many of whom are older Americans--also
often face certain indignities when they attempt to exercise their
fundamental right of a secret vote. If they cannot see the ballot, they
are told to bring someone into the voting booth with them, to read the
ballot for them and cast their vote. An extraordinary 81 percent of
visually impaired individuals had to rely on others to mark their
ballots for them, according to the National Voter Independence Project.
The secret ballot is so basic to our democratic system that it is
shocking that it is denied to so many.
The right to vote at a polling place and in private can be provided
to the elderly and disabled for a very low price. State election
agencies may incur some costs in bringing their polling places into
compliance, however, these are expenses already required of the states
by the 1984 law. More importantly in most cases, the costs are not
likely to be high. The FEC noted that improvements seen in 1992 ``were
in many cases achieved merely by relocating polling places to
accessible buildings at no cost to the taxpayers.'' Where polling
places are not accessible to individuals with physical disabilities,
they can be moved to already accessible buildings, such as malls,
public libraries and schools. In many instances, access would be
improved by putting up signs directing persons with disabilities to
accessible entrances. These and other simple solutions have been
implemented by some precincts at only minimal cost.
Improving access for the visually impaired can also be a low-cost
endeavor for states. Many visually impaired individuals would be able
to vote independently if the ballots were simply in larger type.
Providing a tape recording of the ballot for the visually impaired to
listen to is another solution that has been implemented by a few
precincts for very low cost. It is a small price to pay to guarantee
our fundamental rights to all of our citizens.
Those who would benefit from this bill include the men and women who
were injured serving our country in the armed forces. Other
beneficiaries would be elderly citizens who may have voted regularly
throughout their lives, and only their failing vision keeps them from
voting now. Still others on whose behalf we offer this bill are victims
of accidents, illnesses, or genetic disorders. Is there any one among
those individuals who should be denied the right to participate in the
voting process? Of course not. It is for them, Mr. President, that we
offer this very important piece of legislation.
______
By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Edwards):
S. 512. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the expansion, intensification, and coordination of the activities of
the Department of Health and Human Services with respect to research on
autism; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
advancement in pediatric autism research act
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today, I will introduce legislation that
will build on current scientific advances in understanding autism and
will promote additional research in this promising field. I introduced
a very similar bill last year and am greatly encouraged by the progress
in this field. In the last 12 months, we've seen an increase in the
number of researchers interested in this field, additional funding for
autism research and greater public awareness about this disability. It
is my hope that we can continue this momentum and pass meaningful
legislation this year.
Many think autism is rare. In fact, it is the third most prevalent
childhood disability, affecting an estimated four hundred thousand
Americans and their families. It is also a condition that doctors and
scientists believe can be cured. It is not something that we simply
must accept.
When people think of autism they might remember the character played
by Dustin Hoffman in the movie ``Rainman.'' Yet autism has many faces;
it affects people from every background, social and ethnic category.
Children with autism may be profoundly retarded and may never learn to
speak, while other may be extremely hyperactive and bright. Some
[[Page 3388]]
may have extraordinary talents, such as an exceptional memory or skill
in mathematics. However, all share the common traits of difficulty with
communication and social interaction. And for reasons we do not yet
understand, eighty percent of those with autism are males.
But autism is not about statistics or medical definitions--it is
about children and families. The Kruegers, from Washington state, have
an all too typical story. Their little girl Chanel developed like any
other child--she happily played with her parents, took her first steps,
learned some of her first words and then she started to regress. In
four short months, by the time she was two, Chanel had become almost
completely enveloped in her own private world. Chanel's mother told me
``it was like somebody came in the middle of the night and took my
child.''
Like many children with autism, the Krueger's daughter no longer
responded when her parents called her name; words she once spoke
clearly became garbled; and socializing became more and more difficult.
Fortunately, due to her parents' dedication and intervention Chanel
Krueger at age 5, is doing remarkably well.
But, many autistic children completely lose the ability to interact
with the outside world. The hours these kids should be spending in
little league or playing with their friends are often spent staring out
the window, transfixed by the dust floating in the sunlight or the
pattern of leaves on the ground.
Even today, with advances in therapy and early intervention, few of
these children will go to college, hold a regular job, live
independently or marry. More than half never learn how to speak.
The facts about autism can be sobering--but there is hope. Early
intervention and treatment has helped many children. Science has also
made great strides in understanding this disorder. We now know that
autism is a biological condition, it is not an emotional problem and it
is not caused by faulty parenting. Scientists believe that autism is
one of the most heritable developmental disorders and is the most
likely to benefit from the latest advances in genetics and neurology.
Once the genetic link is discovered, the opportunities for
understanding, treating, and eventually curing autism are endless.
The promise of research is exactly why I am introducing this
legislation. This bill will increase the federal commitment to autism
research. Its cornerstone is authorization for five Centers of
Excellence where basic researchers, clinicians and scientists can come
together to increase our understanding of this devastating disorder.
Because so little is known about the prevalence of autism, I have
added a provision that establishes at the Centers for Disease Control
at least three centers of expertise on autism in an effort to identify
the causes of autism. The epidemiology research will help us confirm or
dismiss whether a genetic disposition to autism may be triggered by
environmental factors. If so, identifying those factors may help us in
taking steps to prevent autism from developing.
A library of genetic information will be a valuable tool for
researchers trying to identify the genetic basis for autism. The bill
includes a provision to fund a gene and brain tissue bank developed
from families affected with autism to be available for research
purposes.
While we are hoping to advance our understanding and treatment of
autism through research, it is also important that pediatricians and
other health professionals have the most current information so that
children and their families can receive help as early as possible. The
bill includes authorization for an Autism Wareness Program to educate
doctors and other health professionals about autism.
Finally, it is vital that we encourage collaboration among the
scientists conducting this important work throughout the Department of
Health and Human Services. The bill establishes an Inter-Agency Autism
Coordinating Committee to bring together the scientists at the various
Institutes at the NIH, at the Centers for Disease Control and other
agencies conducting autism research.
While the focus of this bill is on autism, advances in this area are
also likely to shed light on related problems such as attention deficit
disorder, obsessive compulsive disorders, and various seizure disorders
and learning disabilities.
Research is the key to unlocking the door and freeing those with
autism from the isolation and loneliness of their private world. This
bill is intended to give the NIH and the CDC the resources to take
advantage of the tremendous opportunity before us to find more
effective treatments and ultimately a cure for autism. The promise is
real. Fulfillment of that promise only requires our commitment. I urge
my Senate colleagues to support this important investment in the future
of our children and our Nation.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 38
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Hutchinson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 38, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out the estate and gift taxes
over a 10-year period.
S. 51
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes)
were added as cosponsors of S. 51, a bill to reauthorize the Federal
programs to prevent violence against women, and for other purposes.
S. 52
At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Mack) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) were added as
cosponsors of S. 52, a bill to provide a direct check for education.
S. 67
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Hollings) was added as a cosponsor of S. 67, a bill 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. 98
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Breaux) was added as a cosponsor of S. 98, a bill to authorize
appropriations for the Surface Transportation Board for fiscal years
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and for other purposes.
S. 101
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), and the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) were added as cosponsors of S. 101, a
bill to promote trade in United States agricultural commodities,
livestock, and value-added products, and to prepare for future
bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations.
S. 148
At the request of Mr. Abraham, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer)
were added as cosponsors of S. 148, a bill to require the Secretary of
the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance in the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
S. 171
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) were added as
cosponsors of S. 171, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to limit the
concentration of sulfur in gasoline used in motor vehicles.
S. 185
At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell)
were added as cosponsors of S. 185, a bill to establish a Chief
Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade
Representative.
S. 192
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as
[[Page 3389]]
a cosponsor of S. 192, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to increase the Federal minimum wage.
S. 211
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name 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. 223
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 223, a bill
to help communities modernize public school facilities, and for other
purposes.
S. 260
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 260, a bill to
make chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, permanent, and for
other purposes.
S. 271
At the request of Mr. Frist, the names of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) were added as cosponsors of S. 271, a
bill to provide for education flexibility partnerships.
S. 280
At the request of Mr. Frist, the names of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) were added as cosponsors of S. 280, a bill to provide for
education flexibility partnerships.
S. 285
At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), and the
Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) were added as cosponsors of S.
285, a bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to restore the
link between the maximum amount of earnings by blind individuals
permitted without demonstrating ability to engage in substantial
gainful activity and the exempt amount permitted in determining excess
earnings under the earnings test.
S. 311
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 311, a bill to authorize the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial
Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its
environs, and for other purposes.
S. 314
At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith),
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr.
Robb) were added as cosponsors of S. 314, a bill to provide for a loan
guarantee program to address the Year 2000 computer problems of small
business concerns, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Daschle, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 314, supra.
At the request of Mr. Bunning, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 314, supra.
S. 322
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the names of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) were
added as cosponsors of S. 322, a bill to amend title 4, United States
Code, to add the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to the list of days on
which the flag should especially be displayed.
S. 327
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 327, a bill to exempt agricultural products, medicines, and medical
products from U.S. economic sanctions.
S. 331
At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Edwards) was added as a cosponsor of S. 331, a bill 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.
S. 345
At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell) was added as a cosponsor 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. 346
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) were added as
cosponsors of S. 346, a bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to prohibit the recoupment of funds recovered by States from one or
more tobacco manufacturers.
S. 349
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Jeffords) was added as a cosponsor of S. 349, a bill to allow
depository institutions to offer negotiable order of withdrawal
accounts to all businesses, to repeal the prohibition on the payment of
interest on demand deposits, and for other purposes.
S. 351
At the request of Mr. Grams, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 351, a bill to provide
that certain Federal property shall be made available to States for
State and local organization use before being made available to other
entities, and for other purposes.
S. 387
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 387, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from gross income
for distributions from qualified State tuition programs which are used
to pay education expenses.
S. 389
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Breaux) was added as a cosponsor of S. 389, a bill to amend title
10, United States Code, to improve and transfer the jurisdiction over
the troops-to-teachers program, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Robb, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 389, supra.
S. 393
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 393, a bill to provide
Internet access to certain Congressional documents, including certain
Congressional Research Service publications, Senate lobbying and gift
report filings, and Senate and Joint Committee documents.
S. 395
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the names of the Senator from
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) were
added as cosponsors of S. 395, a bill to ensure that the volume of
steel imports does not exceed the average monthly volume of such
imports during the 36-month period preceding July 1997.
S. 403
At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 403, a bill to prohibit
implementation of ``Know Your Customer'' regulations by the Federal
banking agencies.
S. 414
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 414, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 5-year extension of the
credit for producing electricity from wind, and for other purposes.
[[Page 3390]]
S. 456
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 456, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a credit against
income tax for information technology training expenses paid or
incurred by the employer, and for other purposes.
S. 458
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 458, a bill to modernize and
improve the Federal Home Loan Bank System, and for other purposes.
S. 469
At the request of Mr. Breaux, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was withdrawn as a cosponsor of S. 469, a bill to
encourage the timely development of a more cost effective United States
commercial space transportation industry, and for other purposes.
S. 484
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the names of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms)
were added as cosponsors of S. 484, a bill to provide for the granting
of refugee status in the United States to nationals of certain foreign
countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American Korean War
POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist in the return to the
United States of those POW/MIAs alive.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 5
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the names of the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson),
the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins), the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Sessions), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from
Maine (Ms. Snowe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Bryan), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Enzi), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) were added as cosponsors of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 5, a concurrent resolution expressing congressional
opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and
urging the President to assert clearly United States opposition to such
a unilateral declaration of statehood.
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, supra.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 11
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the names of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), and the Senator
from Montana (Mr. Burns) were added as cosponsors of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 11, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress
with respect to the fair and equitable implementation of the amendments
made by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
Senate Concurrent Resolution 11, supra.
Senate Resolution 19
At the request of Mr. Specter, the names of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the
Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) were added as cosponsors of Senate
Resolution 19, a resolution to express the sense of the Senate that the
Federal investment in biomedical research should be increased by
$2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Senate Resolution 26
At the request of Mr. Murkowski, the names of the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Roth) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine) were added
as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 26, a resolution relating to
Taiwan's Participation in the World Health Organization.
Senate Resolution 34
At the request of Mr. Torricelli, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) were
added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 34, a resolution designating
the week beginning April 30, 1999, as ``National Youth Fitness Week.''
Senate Resolution 47
At the request of Mr. Murkowski, the names of the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Cleland), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 47, a
resolution designating the week of March 21 through March 27, 1999, as
``National Inhalants and Poisons Awareness Week.''
Senate Resolution 48
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the names of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Abraham), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator
from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Breaux), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator
from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) were added
as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 48, a resolution designating the
week beginning March 7, 1999, as ``National Girl Scout Week.''
Senate Resolution 53
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Gorton) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) were
added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 53, a resolution to designate
March 24, 1999, as ``National School Violence Victims' Memorial Day.''
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 55--MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN SENATE COMMITTEES
FOR THE 106TH CONGRESS
Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 55
Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of S. Res.
400 of the 95th Congress, or the provisions of rule XXV, the
following shall constitute the membership on those Senate
committees listed below for the 106th Congress, or until
their successors are appointed:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Specter (Chairman), Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Graham of Florida, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Murray.
Special Committee on Aging: Mr. Grassley (Chairman), Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Santorum, Mr.
Hagel, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Hutchinson of
Arkansas, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Bayh, Mrs.
Lincoln, and Mr. Bryan.
Committee on Indian Affairs: Mr. Campbell (Chairman), Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye (Vice Chairman), Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr.
Dorgan.
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problems: Mr.
Bennett (Chairman), Mr. Kyl, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Stevens (ex-officio), Mr. Dodd (Vice Chairman),
Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Byrd (ex-officio).
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 56--RECOGNIZING MARCH 2 AS ``NATIONAL READ ACROSS
AMERICA DAY,'' AND ENCOURAGING READING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR
Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Robb) submitted
the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
[[Page 3391]]
S. Res. 56
Whereas reading is a fundamental part of life and every
American should be given the chance to experience the many
joys it can bring;
Whereas National Read Across America Day calls for every
child in every American community to celebrate and extoll the
virtue of reading on the birthday of America's favorite
Doctor--Dr. Seuss;
Whereas National Read Across America Day is designed to
show every American child that reading can be fun, and
encourages parents, relatives and entire communities to read
to our nation's children;
Whereas National Read Across America Day calls on every
American to take time out of their busy day to pick up a
favorite book and read to a young boy or girl, a class or a
group of students;
Whereas reading is a catalyst for our children's future
academic success, their preparation for America's jobs of the
future, and our nation's ability to compete in the global
economy;
Whereas the distinguished Chairman Jim Jeffords and Ranking
Member Ted Kennedy of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee have provided significant leadership in
the area of community involvement in reading through their
participation in the Everybody Wins! program;
Whereas Chairman Jim Jeffords has been recognized for his
leadership in reading by Parenting Magazine;
Whereas prominent sports figures such as National Read
Across America Day Honorary Chairman Cal Ripken of the
Baltimore Orioles baseball team, Sandy Alomar of the
Cleveland Indians, and members of the Atlanta Falcons
football team have dedicated substantial time, energy and
resources to encourage young people to experience the joy and
fun of reading;
Whereas the 105th Congress made an historic commitment to
reading through the passage of the Reading Excellence Act
which focused on traditionally successful phonics
instruction, tutorial assistance grants for at-risk kids, and
literacy assistance for parents:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes March 2, 1999 as National Read Across
America Day; and
(2) expresses its wishes that every child in every American
city and town has the ability and desire to read throughout
the year, and receives the parental and adult encouragement
to succeed and achieve academic excellence.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED
______
RELATIVE TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY-RELATED
PROBLEM
______
BENNETT (AND DODD) AMENDMENT NO. 30
Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Dodd) proposed an amendment to the
resolution (S. Res. 7) to amend Senate Resolution 208 of the 105th
Congress to increase funding of the Special Committee on the Year 2000
Technology-related Problems; as follows:
On page 1, line 5, strike ``both places'' and insert ``the
second place''.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS
committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Tuesday,
March 2, 1999 in SD-106 at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will
be to review federal child nutrition programs.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information
of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Tuesday, March
2, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The
subject of the hearing is Medical Necessity: From Theory to Practice.
For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.
committee on indian affairs
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate
on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to Mark-up the Committee's
Budget Views & Estimates letter to the Budget Committee for FY 2000
Indian programs. (The Joint Hearing with the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources on American Indian Trust Management Practices in
the Department of the Interior will immediately follow). The Meeting/
Hearing will be held in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on
Indian Affairs at 202/224-2251.
committee on health, education, labor, and Pensions
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information
of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging will be
held on Wednesday, March 3, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate
Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Older Americans Act:
Oversight and Overview. For further information, please call the
committee, 202/224-5375.
committee on health, education, labor, and Pensions
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information
of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Subcommittee on
Employment, Safety, and Training, Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, will be held on Thursday, March 4,
1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject
of the hearing is ``the New SAFE Act.'' For further information, please
call the committee, 202/224-5375.
committee on small business
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on
Small Business will hold a hearing on ``The President's Fiscal Year
2000 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration.'' The
hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 6, 1999, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The hearing will be broadcast live on the Internet from our homepage
address: http://www.senate.gov/sbc
For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet
during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 1999. The purpose
of this meeting will be to review Federal child nutrition programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on armed services
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 2,
1999, at 9:30 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the defense
authorization request for fiscal year 2000 and the future years defense
plan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet
during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, for purposes of
conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at
10:00 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to consider the
President's budget for FY2000 for the Department of the Interior.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to
meet for a hearing on ``Medical Necessity: From Theory to Practice''
during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, at 9:30
a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on Veterans' affairs
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would
like to request unanimous consent to hold a joint hearing with the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to receive the legislative
presentations of
[[Page 3392]]
the Veterans of World War I of the USA, Non-Commissioned Officers
Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, and
the Blinded Veterans Association. The hearing will be held on Tuesday,
March 2, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., in room 345 of the Cannon House Office
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the year 2000 technology problem special
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem be permitted to meet on
March 2, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on surface transportation/merchant marine
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation/Merchant Marine be allowed to
meet on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, at 9:30 am on reauthorization of the
Surface Transportation Board.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on western hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics and
Terrorism
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics and
Terrorism of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, at 3:00 pm
to hold a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
COMMENDING THE NEBRASKA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD'S 24TH MEDICAL COMPANY ON
THEIR DEPLOYMENT TO BOSNIA
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, now that the Senate has passed the
Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999,
I would like to take a few moments to express my appreciation for a
group of dedicated Nebraskans who have chosen to serve their country in
the Nebraska Army National Guard.
Most of the fifty-nine members of the Nebraska Army National Guard's
24th Medical Company left Lincoln on February 21st, for Fort Benning,
Georgia. This week, having completed some additional training, these
soldiers from the Nebraska Guard are traveling, along with five of the
unit's UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, to participate in Operation Joint
Forge in Bosnia, where they are scheduled to serve up to 270 days
overseas. The 24th Medical Company will be only the second air medical
evacuation unit deployed to Bosnia, where their mission will be to care
for casualties as they are flown from the front lines to hospitals.
Earlier this month, I visited with members of the medical unit in
their hangar in Lincoln, Nebraska. Mr. President, I am very impressed
by the dedication and training of these fine individuals. We are
increasingly calling upon our nation's Reserve units to provide support
for missions such as Bosnia, as part of America's down-sized military.
Unlike the active duty forces, the citizen soldier puts a uniform on,
serves his or her country, takes the uniform off, and goes back to
work. We Americans should not take this dedication for granted. This
current deployment may last for nine months, and that is nine months of
time away from their families, their jobs, their education, and their
lives. They realize the importance of their mission, and they are
willing to make the sacrifices such a mission entails.
Mr. President, I am encouraged by last week's vote in this chamber to
increase base pay and benefits for our military forces. The men and
women who dedicate their lives to keeping our nation safe need and
deserve a pay raise. The decision to join the military is
extraordinary, and those who do so need to be properly compensated.
However, money has never been and never will be the motivating factor
for people who wish to join the Armed Services. We must ensure that the
soldiers in our military are not driven away from service by a poor
quality-of-life standard. We can accomplish this by making sure that
our military have adequate housing, a good, responsive medical care
system, proper training and equipment, and support for their families.
Even more importantly, we who are not actively involved in military
service must continue to hold up individuals such as the 24th Company
as exemplars of service and sacrifice in our country. Theirs are the
stories that need to be told.
In closing, I would like to give a personal ``Thank you'' to each and
every one of the fifty-nine members of the Nebraska Army National
Guard's 24th Medical Company. I wish you success in your journey and
look forward to your return from what is the noblest mission in the
Army, the mission to save lives.
____________________
AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY MONTH
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the month of February has been
designated as African-American History Month, however, African-American
history is American history. The contributions of African-Americans to
America encompass almost every area of American life. African-Americans
are recorded in America as early as 1619, one year before the Mayflower
landed at Plymouth Rock. The oldest established African-American family
are descendants of William Tucker, born in Jamestown, Virginia in 1624.
Unfortunately for many of our youth, African-American role models are
limited to those known for their achievements in the world of sports
and entertainment. Although their accomplishments in this field are
substantial and important, few of our youth know, for instance, about
the many African-Americans who, throughout history, displayed
tremendous courage and honor in times of war. Cripus Attuk, an African-
American, was killed in the Boston Massacre in 1770, becoming the first
casualty of the American Revolution. Most of the 5,000 blacks that
fought in the Revolutionary War were slaves that fought in place of
their owners. After the war had been won, they were immediately put
back to work on their plantations, still slaves. More than 200,000
African-Americans served in the Civil War. After the Civil War, many of
these trained soldiers were sent west and were reorganized as the 9th &
10th Cavalries, where they were called the ``Buffalo Soldier'' by the
Indians they were fighting. The Tuskeegee Airmen of World War II, an
air squadron, had the most impressive war record in their theater of
action, never losing a bomber they were assigned to escort. Against
almost insurmountable odds and racial discrimination, African-Americans
have faithfully served America.
Significant in another aspect of America's history are the African-
Americans whose endeavors helped fuel the industrial revolution,
contributing to the economic prosperity and standard of life all
Americans enjoy today. George Washington Carver discovered over 500
products with the peanut, the sweet potato, and corn. Many important
inventions were made by African-Americans with thousands of patents
made that have benefitted not only America, but the world. Jan
Matzeliger invented the first shoe making machine. Elijah McCoy had
forty-two patents, most for lubricating different types of steam
engines and machines, as well as the first graphite lubricating device.
Garrett A. Morgan invented the three-way traffic light which he sold to
General Electric. Frederick McKinley Jones invented a workable way to
refrigerate trucks and railroad cars, as well as manufactured movie
sound equipment. George R. Curruthers invented image converters for
detecting electromagnetic radiation. He was also one of the two people
responsible for the development of the lunar service ultraviolet
camera/specter graph. Dr. Charles R. Drew is credited with the
discovery of blood plasma which supplants blood in transfusions, as was
the first person to set up and establish blood banks. Dr. Daniel Hale
Williams is the first doctor to successfully perform open heart
surgery.
[[Page 3393]]
Some of the people mentioned played an important role in America's
past wars. Many African-Americans I encounter today, however, are the
unsung heroes of a different kind of war. They battle for the hearts
and minds of our inner city youth. For example in Philadelphia, The
Reverend Herb Lusk, and ``People for People,'' are providing welfare to
work training, after school tutoring for grade school children, as well
as GED and computer training for the poor and disadvantaged. The
Reverend Dr. Ben Smith's Deliverance Church, which owns and operates a
shopping mall and sixty-five outreach ministries, has long served the
greater community. C. Delores Tucker currently organizes the largest
Martin Luther King Center for Non-violence in the nation. One of the
many things she does for the community is to arrange for many to gather
and celebrate our great Civil Rights leader on his birthday at an
annual luncheon.
It is fitting that all Americans salute the invaluable services and
contributions of African-Americans and the role that they have played
and continue to play in American History.
____________________
SOLDIERS', SAILORS', AIRMEN'S AND MARINES' BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I support giving our troops a pay
raise, and I support improving the retirement package of career
military personnel. However, the bill the Senate has considered, S. 4,
the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights, is not
only too expensive, it was also brought to the floor too hastily,
without holding hearings on its provisions, and before we considered
how the bill might affect the rest of the budget. Even though I want to
see a pay raise and retirement reform, I had to vote against this
excessively costly bill.
When S. 4 was reported out of committee, it already cost $12 billion
more than the President requested over the next five years. The bill as
passed by the Senate is estimated to cost $17 billion more than the
President asked for. That is just for the next five years. Using
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures, S. 4 would consume one-
quarter of the projected non-Social Security surplus in the next fiscal
year. Once personnel start to retire under its provisions, costs will
skyrocket. CBO estimates that the retirement changes in S. 4 will
eventually raise the costs of military pensions by a whopping 18
percent. These increased costs will come due at the same time the baby
boom generation retires, with the attendant strain on Social Security
and Medicare.
It is impossible to justify these steep increases in costs,
particularly since not one hearing was held on S. 4. We all agree there
are problems with recruitment and retention in the military, but we did
not get the benefit of expert testimony--or any testimony at all--as to
why, nor did we get input on how best to address these problems before
passing this very expensive solution. Last year Congress asked the
General Accounting Office (GAO) to do a detailed study of recruitment
and retention problems. GAO has been conducting surveys and
interviewing troops in the field to find out why they may plan to leave
the service. GAO's preliminary findings show that ``money has been
overstated as a retention factor.'' GAO's report is due in just a few
months. Similar studies by CBO and the Pentagon are due out shortly.
Some experts have said that dissatisfaction over military health care
and the operations tempo were more important issues for those leaving
the military.
I find it most troubling that this bill was brought to the floor
before we passed a budget resolution, and outside of the normal Defense
Authorization bill. With no budget caps, and no other defense
priorities to consider, the bill brought us into a never, never land of
wishful thinking. The bill sets out the most generous package of
benefits, but does not consider what might happen to the rest of the
defense budget if these cost increases go into effect. Will we have to
cut readiness, operations and maintenance, or procurement accounts?
Will we be able to fund steps that could reduce the operations tempo or
make it more predictable? Will we be able to fund improvements in
military health care?
The so-called firewalls between defense and domestic discretionary
spending are down. That means that, rather than cutting other parts of
the defense budget to pay for these increases, we may have to cut
domestic programs instead, like education, the environment, or
transportation. According to the Concord Coalition, 57 percent of the
budget was devoted to entitlements in 1998, but we are now on track to
devote 73 percent of the budget to entitlements by 2009. This bill will
worsen the entitlement picture, and mean that more and more
discretionary spending will have to be cut to cover growing
entitlements.
This was a very sad first bill for the Senate to consider after we
finally turned the corner on deficits. We cannot go back to pre-1974
Budget Act spending patterns. We must not abandon fiscal discipline and
spend the surplus before we even see a penny of it. I hope and expect
that fiscal sanity will be restored and that, when the bill returns
from conference or as part of a larger measure, I will be able to vote
for a well-deserved pay raise for our military personnel and a
reasonable retirement package, but a package that fits within the
budget framework and discipline we have all embraced.
____________________
FUTURE LEADERS OF THE BIG SKY STATE
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in my view, public service is the
most noble human endeavor. Today, more than ever, we must look to the
younger generation as leaders for tomorrow. For their commitment to
community service, I am pleased to recognize two of Montana's young
leaders.
Their community work demonstrates an ability to make a difference in
the lives of others. The work of these two young Montanans sets an
impressive standard for their peers.
I would like to congratulate and honor two young Montana students who
have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in
their communities. Mindi Kimp of Corvallis, Montana, and Jill Lombardi
of Helena, Montana, have been named State Honorees in The 1999
Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor
conferred on only one high school and one middle school student in each
state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Ms. Kimp is being recognized for her work in coordinating a ``senior
citizen prom'' for seniors living in Missoula and Ravalli counties.
Mindi, a 4-H member and junior class president, enjoys a close
relationship with her grandparents. In helping to plan her own Hamilton
High School prom, she conceived the idea of a senior citizen prom. She
believed that this would be a great way to honor grandparents and help
restore faith in today's younger generation. Mindi worked closely with
the Council on Aging in planning the event. She solicited donations to
make the event free to all seniors. She also used it to provide prizes,
decorations, and a rose for every lady. The event was so successful
that she will speak at the State Student Council Convention on how to
plan a senior citizen prom. The event will now be held annually at
Hamilton High School.
Ms. Lombardi, a member of the Helena Youth Advisory Council, is being
recognized for her leadership role in two projects: a skateboard park
and ``Martin Luther King Volunteer Day.'' Jill served on and
established the first-ever Helena Youth Advisory Council. As a member,
Jill recruited interested skateboarders to advise the council on the
design of the park. She also helped to obtain a $50,000 grant from the
Turner Foundation for the park's construction. In planning the
volunteer day, Jill worked with the council to organize activities such
as community clean-up and youth reading programs. She recruited
volunteers, analyzed community needs, arranged volunteer projects, and
coordinated celebration activities. The event's success has inspired
the council to host the event again next year.
Young volunteers like Ms. Kimp and Ms. Lombardi are inspiring
examples
[[Page 3394]]
to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.
It is important that we recognize their achievements and support their
contributions. Numerous statistics indicate that Americans today are
less involved in their communities than they once were, and it is
critical that the work of these young people is encouraged.
The program that brought these young role models to our attention--
The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created by The
Prudential Insurance Company of America in partnership with the
National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995 to impress
upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically
important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to
follow their example. In only four years, the program has become the
nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community
service, with more than 50,000 youngsters participating.
Ms. Kimp and Ms. Lombardi should be extremely proud to have been
singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. As part of
their recognition, they will come to Washington in early May, along
with other 1999 Spirit of Community honorees from across the country.
While here in Washington, ten will be selected as America's top youth
volunteers of the year by a distinguished national selection committee.
I heartily applaud Ms. Kimp and Ms. Lombardi for their initiative in
seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the
positive impact they have had on the lives of Montanans. I also would
like to salute two young people in Montana who were named Distinguished
Finalists by The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for their
outstanding volunteer service: Nadia Ben-Youssef and Angela Bowlds.
All of these young people have demonstrated a level of commitment and
accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and
deserve our sincere admiration and respect. These young Montana leaders
show commendable community spirit and tremendous promise for America's
future.
____________________
CUMBERLAND ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO DON BARGER
AND TAVIA McCUEAN
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, last week, after more than two
years of negotiations, an agreement was finally reached to release
funding for land acquisition on Cumberland Island National Seashore.
Located off the coast of Georgia, Cumberland provides a unique
experience for visitors by enabling them to view seemingly endless
undeveloped beaches and dunes in pristine condition. The beautiful
coastline is contrasted by marshes and vast forests of mixed hardwoods.
The natural environment plays a critical role in habitat protection for
several threatened and endangered species including the bald eagle, the
loggerhead sea turtle and the manatee.
The Island also allows individuals to visit the incredible cultural
and historical remnants which exist on the Island. The remarkable
history of the island indicates human habitation dating back thousands
of years. First occupied by the Spanish in the early days of the
colonial period, the island was eventually claimed by the English in
the mid-1700s. Cumberland also has historical connections to the
Revolutionary and Civil Wars. One unique historical reference to the
island--brought to my attention by the Senate's own resident historian,
the distinguished Senior Senator from West Virginia, relays the story
that after his duel with Alexander Hamilton on July 11, 1804, Aaron
Burr fled to Cumberland Island in exile--only to eventually leave after
being snubbed by the island residents.
With this agreement, we have not only preserved the Island in
accordance with its designation as a National Seashore, but we have
taken the critical steps necessary to restore and maintain the historic
and cultural resources on Cumberland which had been seriously neglected
for several years. The agreement also provides additional access to
individuals wishing to visit the historic resources on the island. By
releasing the monies for the land purchase and implementing these
changes, we will be making the ultimate benefactors the future
generations of Americans who will have the opportunity to experience
the natural and historical treasures possessed by Cumberland Island.
I would like to take a moment to publicly recognize and express my
sincere appreciation to Don Barger, Southeast Regional Director of the
National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), for his assistance
in resolving the issues on Cumberland Island National Seashore. Don has
been with NPCA since 1992. Having once climbed Mount Rainier, Don
transfers this same motivation and dedication to his work. He is an
avid and passionate defender of preserving and protecting our National
Park System.
Don played a vital role in crafting the Cumberland agreement by
actively engaging and compromising with numerous interested
stakeholders while at the same time fulfilling his duty to preserve the
integrity of the Wilderness Act and the National Park System. His
tireless effort and willingness to commit his time, energy and
enthusiasm to this process reflect well upon him and on the National
Parks and Conservation Association.
I would like to pay special thanks to Tavia McCuean, Georgia State
Director of The Nature Conservancy, who vigilantly pursued the critical
land acquisition funds for Cumberland. The Cumberland agreement would
not have been possible without the generous commitment of The
Conservancy to contribute $6 million for the land purchase.
There were certainly several occasions over the past two years in
which Tavia and The Nature Conservancy could have lost all patience as
repeated efforts to obtain the land acquisition funds were blocked.
However, Tavia tirelessly and patiently focused her energy and that of
her dedicated staff towards securing the release of these funds. Future
generations visiting Cumberland Island will owe a great debt of
gratitude for this experience to the efforts of Tavia McCuean and The
Nature Conservancy.
President Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``The nation behaves well if
it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to
the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.'' Both Tavia
McCuean and Don Barger have done well in upholding this doctrine and
truly represent the best of public spiritedness.
____________________
RETIREMENT OF HENRY WOODS
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, if you consult any of the
numerous Congressional directories that are published here in
Washington, you will see that they all list six members of the Arkansas
Congressional Delegation--two Senators and four House members. But for
the past 25 years, there has been an unofficial seventh member of our
delegation: a dynamic, hard-working, can-do staffer named Henry Woods.
After two decades in the nation's capital, Henry is retiring, and the
state of Arkansas is losing a Washington institution.
Henry has helped one Congressman and three Senators from Arkansas to
court and inform constituents, direct Arkansans to the assistance they
need, provide intern opportunities for the state's young people, and
stage events to advance his members' priorities at home and the state's
interest in Washington. For the past 25 years, people working in the
state congressional delegation knew that if you wanted to launch an
ambitious project and have it done well, you wanted Henry Woods to be
in charge of it.
His institutional memory is as incredible as it has been invaluable.
It is not uncommon for him, at a moment's notice, to recall the name of
a constituent's wife, the ages of their children and which schools they
attend, which of his cousins serve in the State Legislature, and what
civic groups he belongs to and who he supported in the last campaign.
He can also cite zip code after zip code, not to mention phone prefixes
for cities and towns across Arkansas.
[[Page 3395]]
Over the years he has made many friends in the halls of the House and
Senate, from the doorkeepers to the printing clerks, from the
restaurant workers to the Rules Committee staffers who have all helped
him accomplish things for the members and constituents. He has an
amazing way of finding the people and the resources to accomplish any
project he is given.
Henry, a proud Hot Springs native, is legendary for his political
savvy and quick wit. His fellow staffers often wondered why someone as
busy as Henry was so willing to serve as driver for his employer
whenever one was needed. After a while, they realized that those
occasions gave Henry as much as a half-hour of interrupted access to
the member, which he used to full effect. He has often been heard
cautioning members and staffers alike that certain visitors waiting to
see them ``may not be right, but they're convinced.'' Another popular
Henry-ism has been an admonition to disgruntled staffers that they
``can just get glad in the same clothes they got mad in.''
Henry has set up and run intern programs that have easily helped more
than 1,000 Arkansas students become familiar with the working of
Congress and the federal government. His intern program has been so
successful that it has been emulated by countless other congressional
offices. Henry's interns never sat idly in the office waiting for the
next tour, softball game or free reception. He made sure each one had
the chance to work in a variety of capacities and learn a number of
skills in the offices. It is not surprising that many of his interns
have gone on to run for public office and serve in the state's leading
corporations, commissions, and charitable organizations.
In addition to his official efforts, he kept the Arkansas State
Society and the University of Arkansas alumni society running
efficiently for many years, working countless hours of his personal
time to organize events ranging from the cherry blossom reception to
football watch parties and trips to the horse races--all aimed at
keeping Arkansans in Washington in touch.
Several of his friends established an award in his name last year at
his beloved University of Arkansas, where he served on the Board of
Directors of the Alumni Association. A cash award will be given each
year to a student who shows an interest in internships or government
services. The award will be formally announced at the University on
April 22.
To put it briefly, no matter which office he was working in, Henry
quickly became indispensable, a fact that was recognized by countless
people both on and off the Hill as the following letters attest. Now he
is leaving for sunnier climes in the southern-most point of the
continental United States. We are going to miss him, and we are going
to be poorer without him. We wish him well, and we want to let him know
that the key will be under the doormat for him any time he wants to
come back.
Mr. President, I ask that the four letters regarding Henry Wood's
retirement be printed in the Record.
The letters follow:
The White House,
Washington, DC, February 23, 1999.
Henry Woods,
Washington, DC.
Dear Henry: As you retire from your lifetime of public
service on Capitol Hill, I want to congratulate you and thank
you for your commitment, hard work, and generous leadership.
In particular, I am so grateful for your efforts on behalf
of the people from our home state. The warm hospitality you
have provided to Arkansas visiting the Capitol throughout
these 25 years has given them a special feeling of
connectedness to their representatives here in Washington.
The guidance you have provided people of all ages--and
especially youth and students--leaves a wonderful legacy . .
. and big shoes to fill!
Hillary joins me in sending our best wishes for all
possible happiness in this next phase of your life.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
____
February 22, 1999.
Mr. Henry Woods,
Office of Senator Lincoln, Washington, DC.
Dear Henry: You came to Washington for a summer and stayed
a career! And what an illustrious career you've had working
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
You've held many positions during your tenure, and done a
superb job in each one. You developed an intern program that
has proved to be one of the best on Capitol Hill. Over the
years, you have been very involved with the Arkansas State
Society. Some would say, ``If it wasn't for Henry, there
wouldn't be a State Society.'' You've worked in more
campaigns than I have run. Your tent parties are legendary.
You helped coach the winning Capitol Hill softball team in
1982--the Pryorities. You are--the Razorbacks' biggest fan!
Henry, how can we thank you for the tremendous contribution
you made to our state, our country--and to all of us.
Barbara and the entire Pryor family join me in wishing you
the very best in the years ahead.
Sincerely,
David Pryor.
____
Attorney General of Arkansas,
Little Rock, AR, February 19, 1999.
Mr. Henry Woods,
Office of Senator Lincoln, Washington, DC.
Dear Henry: First let me add my congratulations to the many
I know you are receiving from friends and colleagues on
Capitol Hill as you retire from 25 years of government
service. I can't imagine the Arkansas delegation without
Henry. You have done so much for so many (including myself)
over the years, we cannot begin to properly thank you.
I remember one of my early campaigns for the Arkansas State
Legislature. You took time off and came to Arkansas to help
organize a ``Get Out the Vote'' effort. You and your army of
``intern alumni'' worked tirelessly to get me elected, and I
will never forget it.
Henry, Capitol Hill will miss you--but not half as much as
Arkansas will miss you!
I wish you all the best in your new life.
With warm regards,
Mark Pryor.
____
Little Rock, AR, February 11, 1999.
Mr. Henry Woods,
Senator Blanche Lincoln's Office,
Washington, DC.
Dear Henry: I'm still in denial. I can't imagine Washington
without you, and if I could change your mind, I would do so
in a heartbeat.
But knowing that's not possible, let me just say that
``friends are friends forever'' and our friendship--which
began at the University of Arkansas and continues through
today--will always be special.
I thank you for being so responsive to so many. I thank you
for designing and implementing the best intern program on
Capitol Hill. I thank you for giving so many Arkansas young
people the chance to participate.
In just a few weeks, we will dedicate the ``Henry Woods
Award'' at the University of Arkansas. It has already been
endowed by your many friends and will be presented annually
to the outstanding student leader on the campus. From this
day forward, the most honorable student leader at your alma
matter will be recognized with an award bearing your name.
Now, I have a new project for you. Certainly a book about
your experiences is in order. I hope you will consider it,
and I look forward to talking with you--and the University of
Arkansas Press--about it.
Billie is already making Key West family vacation plans.
All the Rutherfords wish you much happiness and continued
success.
Thank you for making Arkansas very proud.
Best Wishes,
Skip Rutherford.
____________________
MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to help increase the
public's awareness of mental retardation as we focus on the needs and
abilities of the nation's 7.2 million Americans with mental
retardation. The Arc, the nation's largest organization of volunteer
advocates for people with mental retardation, consists of more than
1,000 local and state chapters. For 21 years, the Arc has sponsored the
recognition of March as National Mental Retardation Awareness Month.
The Arc began in 1950 as a small army of friends and parents in
Minneapolis, Minnesota came together to create the National Association
of Parents and Friends of Mentally Retarded Children. From this spark
in 1950, Arc members have become advocates not only for their own
children, but all children and other Americans denied services and
opportunities because of mental retardation.
According to Arc, a person with mental retardation is one who, from
childhood, develops intellectually at a below-average rate and
experiences difficulty in learning, social adjustment and economic
productivity. Otherwise, he or she is just like anyone else--with
[[Page 3396]]
the same feelings, interests, goals, needs and desire for acceptance.
This intellectual delay requires not only personal support, but
environmental support for them to live independently.
There are more than 250 causes of mental retardation. Among the most
recognized are chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, and
prenatal influences, such as smoking or alcohol use by a pregnant
mother, which may lead to fetal alcohol syndrome or other
complications. Malnutrition, lead poisoning and other environmental
problems can also lead to mental retardation in children.
Experts estimate that 50% of mental retardation can be prevented if
current knowledge is applied to safeguarding the health of babies and
toddlers. Some of the keys are abstinence from alcohol use during
pregnancy, obtaining good prenatal care, education programs for
pregnant women, and the use of child seats and safety belts for
children.
The theme for this year's observance is the elimination of waiting
lists for community-based services. In a study conducted by the Arc,
more than 218,000 people were identified as waiting for placement in a
community-based residential facility, a job training program, a
competitive employment situation or other support.
In Minnesota, over 6,600 members in fifty chapters make up the Arc
network, each working to both prevent the causes of mental retardation
and lessen its effects. With the guidance of the Arc, it is these local
and state chapters working at the grassroots levels which have made and
continue to make the greatest impact for Americans with mental
retardation.
Mr. President, I truly appreciate the unabated commitment to the
needs and abilities of people with mental retardation the Arc has
demonstrated over the years and am honored to help further public
awareness.
____________________
LEO MELAMED REFLECTS ON THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my
colleagues an essay written by a great Chicagoan, and the father of our
modern-day futures industry, Leo Melamed. I believe his essay,
Reflections on the Twentieth Century, eloquently captures the essence
of this great nation.
Mr. President, Leo Melamed had to travel a long hard road to reach
the pinnacle of success. As a boy, he survived the Holocaust, coming to
the United States to find a better life for his family. Growing up on
the streets of Chicago, Leo was able to climb the ladder of opportunity
and make that better life for himself and his family. His early
experiences gave him a deep appreciation of the importance of a free
society and an open economy.
Leo Melamed's heroic story embodies the American Dream. The young man
who came to Chicago with little has, through hard work, tenacity,
intellect and energy, given much to the world. In 1972, he launched the
International Monetary Market (IMM), the first financial futures
market. He has also achieved the position of Chairman Emeritus and
Senior Policy Advisor for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), and is
the author of several books. His leadership over the past quarter
century has been critical in helping transform the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange from a domestic agricultural exchange to the world's foremost
financial futures exchange.
Currently, Melamed serves as chairman and CEO of Sakura Dellaher,
Inc., a global futures organization which he formed in 1993 by
combining the Sakura Bank, Ltd., one of the world's largest banks, and
Dellaher Investment Company, Inc., a Futures Commission Merchant (FCM)
he established in 1965. As a member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
and the Chicago Board of Trade, and with an ability to operate in all
world futures markets, Sakura Dellaher, Inc., assists financial
institutions in their management of risk. Because of Leo's exemplary
accomplishments and contributions to the field of financial futures, he
has been recognized as ``the father of the futures market concept.''
I should also add, Mr. President, that the March 1999 issue of
Chicago magazine has chosen Leo Melamed as one of the Most Important
Chicagoans of the 20th Century. The article states: ``As de facto
leader of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for a quarter of a century,
Melamed transformed the moribund exchange, introducing foreign currency
and gold as commodities to be auctioned off in the trading pits. Thanks
to those decisions, Chicago is today the world capital of currency
futures trading.'' Leo Melamed deserves great recognition for his
outstanding contributions to the city he loves so much.
Mr. President, I ask that the full text of Leo Melamed's essay,
Reflections on the Twentieth Century, be printed in the Record.
The essay follows:
Reflections on the Twentieth Century
(By Leo Melamed)
The Twentieth Century, my father told me before his death,
represented a new low in the history of mankind. ``The
Holocaust,'' he said, ``was an indelible blot on human
conscience, one that could never be expunged.''
Still, my father always tempered his realism with a large
dose of optimism. He had, after all, against all odds,
managed to save himself and his immediate family from the
inevitability of the gas chambers. Were that not the case,
this kid from Bialystok would not be here to receive this
incredible Weizmann Institute honor nor tell his story. And
quite a story it is!
I don't mean simply the story of how my father snatched his
wife and son from the clutches of the Nazis. I don't mean
simply the story of how my parents outwitted both the Gestapo
and the KGB during a time in history when, in Humphrey
Bogart's words, ``the world didn't give a hill of beans about
the lives of three people.'' I don't mean simply the story of
our race for freedom across Europe and Siberia during a
moment in history when the world had gone quite mad. And I
don't mean simply the story of Consul General Chiune
Sugihara, the Japanese Oscar Schindler who chose to follow
the dictates of his God rather than those of his Foreign
Office and, in direct violation of their orders, issued life
saving transit visas to some 6000 Jews trapped in Lithuania--
the Melamdoviches among them. Six months later all of us
would have been machine-gunned to death along with 10,000
others in Kovno.
No, I don't mean simply all of that, although all of that
is a helluva story. But there is yet another dimension to the
story here. I mean the story of the splendor of America! For
it was here, here in this land of the free and home of the
brave that the kid from Bialystok was given the opportunity
to grow up on the streets of Chicago, to climb the rungs of
social order without money or clout, and to use his
imagination and skills so that in a small way he could
contribute to the growth of American markets. In doing so he
not only justified fate's decision to spare his life, but
more important, attested to the majesty of this nation.
Because within my story lies the essence of America, the
fundamental beauty of the United States Constitution and the
genius of its creators. For throughout the years, thru ups
and downs, thru defeats and victories, thru innovations which
challenged sacred market doctrines, and ideas which defied
status quo, no one ever questioned my right to dream, nor
rejected my views simply because I as an immigrant, without
proper credentials, without American roots, without wealth,
without influence, or because I was a Jew. Intellectual
values always won out over provincial considerations,
rational thought always prevailed over irrational prejudice,
merit always found its way to the top. Say what you will,
point out the defects, protest the inequities, but at the end
of the day my story represents the real truth about America.
For these reasons, after all was said and done, my parents
were optimists. They agree, that in spite of the two World
Wars, in spite of the horrors and atrocities, the Twentieth
Century was nevertheless a most remarkable century. They
watched the world go from the horse and buggy--to main form
of transportation at their birth--to Apollo Eleven which in
1969 took Neil Armstrong to the moon.
Indeed, it is hard to fathom that at the dawn of my
parent's century, Britannia was still the empire on which the
sun never set; the railroads were in their Golden Age,
automobiles were considered nothing but a fad, the phonograph
was the most popular form of home entertainment, and life
expectancy for the American male was but 48. Sigmund Freud
first published his ``Interpretation of Dreams,'' and Albert
Einstein, the foremost thinker of the century, had just
published his theory of relativity.
Of course, the event that would have the most profound
effect on the direction of our present century occurred back
in 1848--smack dab in the middle of the Nineteenth Century:
Karl Marx and his associate, Friedrich Engels, published the
Communist Manifesto. The concept of communism would
[[Page 3397]]
dominate the political thought of Europe and later Asia for
most of the Twentieth Century.
Today, some 150 years after the concept was conceived, we
know it to have been an unmitigated failure. Indeed, those of
us, citizens of planet Earth fortunate enough to be present
in the final decade of the Twentieth Century, have been
privileged to witness events equal to any celebrated
milestone in the history of mankind. In what seemed like a
made for TV video, we were ringside spectators at a global
rebellion. In less than an eye-blink the Berlin Wall fell,
Germany was unified, Apartheid ended, Eastern Europe was
liberated, the Cold War ceased, and a doctrine that impaired
the freedom of three generations and misdirected the destiny
of the entire planet for seven decades was decisively
repudiated.
What a magnificent triumph of democracy and freedom. What a
glorious victory for capitalism and free markets. What a
majestic tribute to Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Abraham
Lincoln, and Milton Friedman. What a divine time to be alive.
Surely these events represented some of the defining moments
of the Twentieth Century. Ironically, the lynch-pin of all
that occurred will not be found in the political or economic
arena, but rather in the sciences. One hundred years after
the Communist Manifesto, to be precise, on December 23,
1947--smack dab in the middle of the Twentieth Century--two
Bell Laboratory scientists invented the first transistor. It
was the birth of a technology that would serve to dominate
the balance of this century and, I dare say, much of the
Twenty-first as well. The Digital Age was upon us.
Transistors and their offspring, the microchip, transformed
everything: the computer, the space program, the television,
the telephone, the markets, and, to be sure,
telecommunications. Modern telecommunications became the
common denominator which gave everyone the ability to make a
stark, uncompromising comparison of political and economic
systems. The truth could no longer be hidden from the people.
We had migrated said Walter Wriston of Citicorp from the gold
standard to the ``information standard.''
In a very real sense, the technology of the Twentieth
Century moved mankind from the big to the little. It is a
trend that will surely continue. In physics, this century
began with the theory of General Relativity; this dealt with
the vast, with the universe. From there we journeyed to
comprehension of the infinitesimal, to quantum physics.
Physicists were now able to decode nature's age-old secrets.
Similarly, in biology we also moved from macro to micro--from
individual cells to gene engineering. We entered an era of
biomedical research where we can probe the fundamental
components of life and remedy mankind's most distressing
afflictions.
Thus, in stark contrast to the signals at the turn of the
last century, the evidence today is overwhelming that the
next century will be dominated by the information standard.
Today, millions of transistors are etched on wafers of
silicon. On these microchips all the world's information can
be stored in digital form and transmitted to every corner of
the globe via the Internet. This will change the way we live,
the way we work, and the way we play. Indeed, the Digital
Revolution will direct the next century just as the
Industrial Revolution directed much of the Twentieth.
So there you have it: the pain, the progress, and the
promise of my parent's century. It would be grand to believe
that we have learned from our mistakes, that only enlightened
times await us, but I am afraid that would be a bit
pollyannaish. Still, we stand on the threshold of immense
scientific breakthroughs and the future looks brighter than
it ever was. Indeed, the Weizman Institute of Science
symbolizes the scientific miracles of the Twentieth Century
and points the direction for the world as we enter the Twenty
First. If my parents were still present, they would surely
tell this kid from Bialystok to await the next century with
great anticipation and with infinite optimism.
Thank you.
____________________
RETIREMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHIEF JUSTICE ERNEST FINNEY
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today it is my great privilege
and honor to salute one of South Carolina's foremost jurists and public
servants, South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Ernest A. Finney.
On February 23, Chief Justice Finney announced he would retire from
the Court after 14 years. This is a bittersweet day for my state. All
of us who admire Judge Finney and appreciate his legacy are sorry to
see him leave the bench; but we also are happy for Judge Finney if he
has decided it is time to take a richly deserved rest from the rigorous
demands of public service--demands he has shouldered over five decades.
When Ernest Finney graduated from law school in 1954, blacks were not
allowed to join the South Carolina bar or serve on juries. Judge Finney
worked as hard as anyone in the country to change that. One of only a
handful of black lawyers in South Carolina in the 1950s, he began his
legal career as an advocate for equal rights and desegregation.
Ernest Finney and his law partner, Matthew Perry, who went on to
become the first black federal Judge in South Carolina, tirelessly
represented over 6,000 defendants arrested during civil rights
demonstrations in the 1960s. Although they lost all the cases at the
state level, they won almost all of them on appeal in federal courts.
After helping lead the fight to desegregate South Carolina, Ernest
Finney turned his attention to another form of public service. In 1973,
he became one of the first blacks elected to the South Carolina House
in this century. He served until 1976, during which time he founded the
South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus.
From 1976 to 1985, Judge Finney sat on the South Carolina Circuit
Court bench. Always the pioneer, he was the first black Circuit Court
judge in South Carolina.
In 1985, he became the first black member of the state Supreme Court
since Reconstruction. He served with great distinction as an Associate
Justice and earned respect and accolades from his peers and from
attorneys appearing before the Court.
In 1994, Judge Finney was elected Chief Justice, the first black
South Carolinian to attain that position. Without a doubt, he is one of
the finest jurists in South Carolina history. As senior Associate
Justice Jean Toal commented on the announcement of Judge Finney's
retirement: ``He's a giant of the judicial system in South Carolina.
His tenure will be remembered as one of the outstanding tenures of the
modern system.''
Mr. President, today it is my immense pleasure to salute the gigantic
achievements of Judge Ernest Finney, one of the most estimable public
servants in recent South Carolina history. I join his friends and
admirers in wishing him well as he begins his retirement, during which
I suspect he will continue influencing South Carolina for the
better.
____________________
HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE IN SIERRA LEONE
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues
from Wisconsin and Tennessee in co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 54,
which was introduced on February 25. This resolution makes a strong,
and much needed statement about U.S. concern and commitment to African
peace and stability.
In the past several years, Sierra Leonians have seen their country go
through a tumultuous period. On May 24, 1997, the Armed Forces
Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF)
seized control of Sierra Leone. The United States demanded that
democratically elected President Tejan Kabbah be reinstated
immediately.
Although diplomatic efforts by the United States and the Economic
Community of West African States failed, a West African intervention
force, (ECOMOG), was authorized by the international community to
intervene, and it was successful in removing the unrecognized military
rulers from power. On March 10, 1998, President Kabbah returned after
10 months in exile and reassumed control.
Unfortunately violence continues to ravage the country. In January of
this year, RUF launched an offensive to take the capital, Freetown.
Though ECOMOG drove rebel forces from the city, numerous reports of
rape, mutilations, kidnapping of children for forced combat, and
killings of innocent civilians by RUF forces continue to surface.
Official estimates report that in the last 2 months alone, the death
toll has reached 2,000 to 3,000 people, with many also dying from lack
of food and medicine. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
estimates the number of refugees fleeing to Guinea and Liberia at
440,000.
The administration has expressed shock and horror regarding the
desperate situation in Sierra Leone and I
[[Page 3398]]
am pleased that they have indicated they will provide $1.3 million for
logistical support for ECOMOG in 1999, and $55 million for humanitarian
assistance for the people of Sierra Leone. This Resolution builds on
the administration's efforts, and calls for a strong U.S. commitment to
end the violence and suffering in Sierra Leone.
First, it condemns the violence committed by the rebel troops and
those that provide them with financial, political, and other types of
assistance.
Second, it supports increased U.S. political and logistical support
for ECOMOG, while recognizing the need for ECOMOG to improve its
performance and increase its respect for humanitarian law.
Third, it calls for immediate cessation of hostilities and the
observance of human rights.
Fourth, it supports a dialogue between members of the conflict in
order to bring about a resolution.
Finally, it expresses support for the people of Sierra Leone in their
endeavor to create and maintain a stable democratic society.
The situation in Sierra Leone and the influx of refugees to
neighboring countries threatens the stability of the entire West
African region. This is not a time for the United States and the
international community to turn our backs. The people of Sierra Leone
have already suffered too much and will suffer even more if we do not
act. Rather, this is the time to stand firmly on the side of peace and
democracy and the betterment of the lives of all Sierra Leonians.
By passing this legislation, we are making a strong statement in
support of the efforts to contain and bring to a peaceful end this
conflict. We have seen all too many times, in all too many places
around the world the price that is paid if we choose to avert our eyes
and allow violence to flourish. We should not make that mistake. We
should not hesitate to raise our voice. I encourage all my colleagues
to vote in favor of this resolution and in favor of human rights and
justice in Sierra Leone.
____________________
DR. GLENN T. SEABORG
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a
pioneering scientist and a great American, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, who
died on February 25 at the age of 86. Although a chemist by training,
Dr. Seaborg is best remembered for his contributions to nuclear
physics. Dr. Seaborg was the co-discoverer of plutonium, and led a
research team which created a total of nine elements, all of which are
heavier than uranium. For this he was awarded the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry in 1951 which he shared with Dr. Edwin M. McMillan.
In 1942, as a member of the Manhattan Project, Dr. Seaborg was
assigned to a laboratory at the University of Chicago. There he headed
a unit that worked to isolate plutonium from uranium--the fuel used in
the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. After the war ended, Dr. Seaborg
returned to the University of California at Berkeley until 1961, when,
at the request of President John F. Kennedy, he became chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). It was a position he held for ten
years, spanning three administrations. Dr. Seaborg was the first
scientist to direct the Commission. It was in this capacity that Dr.
Seaborg acted as an advisor to the U.S. negotiator, Averell Harriman,
in talks that led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty and was an advocate
for the peaceful use of atomic energy.
Dr. Seaborg kept a journal while chairman of the AEC. The journal
consisted of a diary written at home each evening, correspondence,
announcements, minutes, and the like. He was careful about classified
matters; nothing was included that could not be made public, and the
journal was reviewed by the AEC before his departure in 1971.
Nevertheless, more than a decade after his departure from the AEC, the
Department of Energy subjected two copies of Dr. Seaborg's journals--
one of which it had borrowed--to a number of classification reviews. He
came unannounced to my Senate office in September of 1997 to tell me of
the problems he was having getting his journal released, saying it was
something he wished to have resolved prior to his death. I introduced a
bill to return to Dr. Seaborg his journal in its original, unredacted
form but to no avail, so bureaucracy triumphed. It was never returned.
Now he has left us without having the satisfaction of resolving the
fate of his journal. It is devastating that a man who gave so much of
his life to his country was so outrageously treated by his own
government.
Dr. Seaborg continued to lead a productive life until the very end.
After his tenure as chairman of the AEC, Dr. Seaborg returned to the
University of California at Berkeley where he was a University
Professor--the highest academic distinction--and later a professor in
the university's graduate school of education as a result of his
concern about the quality of science education. He was the director of
the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and until his death its director
emeritus.
And there were well deserved accolades. In 1991 Dr. Seaborg was
awarded the nation's highest award for scientific achievement, the
National Medal of Science. In 1997 the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry named an element after a living person for the first
time. Thus element 106 became Seaborgium (Sg), and Dr. Seaborg was
immortalized as a permanent part of the periodic table to which he had
already added so much.
So today I remember Dr. Seaborg for his contributions to nuclear
physics, and I salute him for his service as chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission. Dr. Seaborg's family is in my prayers at this time
of great loss; his wife of 57 years, Helen, and five of their six
children: Lynne Annette Seaborg, Cobb, David Seaborg, Stephen Seaborg,
John Eric Seaborg, and Dianne Karole Seaborg. Their son Peter Glenn
Seaborg died in May of 1997.
Mr. President, I ask that Dr. Seaborg's obituary, which appeared in
the Washington Post on Saturday, February 27, 1999, be printed in the
Record.
The obituary follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 1999]
Nobel-Winning Chemist Glenn Seaborg Dies
(By Bart Barnes)
Glenn T. Seaborg, 86, the chemist whose work leading to the
discovery of plutonium won a Nobel Prize and helped bring
about the nuclear age, died Feb. 25 at his home near
Berkeley, Calif.
He had been convalescing since suffering a stroke in August
while being honored at a meeting in Boston of the American
Chemical Society.
Dr. Seaborg was a major player on the team of scientists
that developed the world's first atomic bomb used in warfare,
which was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945, in
the closing days of World War II. His research was later a
critical element in the peacetime operation of nuclear power
plants.
For 10 years, during the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon
administrations, he was chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission. It was a period of Cold War tension and mounting
international anxiety over the nuclear arms race. As the
president's primary nuclear adviser, Dr. Seaborg participated
in negotiations that led to the Limited Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty of 1963, and he was an articulate and forceful
advocate for the peaceful use of atomic energy.
A former chancellor of the University of California at
Berkeley, Dr. Seaborg returned to the university as a
chemistry professor on leaving the AEC chairmanship in 1971.
It was at the Berkeley laboratories three decades earlier
that he created from uranium a previously unknown element
that he called plutonium. The amount was infinitesimally
small, about a millionth of a millionth of an ounce, and it
could not be seen with the naked eye.
The process by which this was achieved--the transmutation
of uranium into plutonium by bombarding it with neutrons--
would win the 1951 Nobel Prize in chemistry, which Dr.
Seaborg shared with a Berkeley colleague, Edwin M. McMillan.
A form of this new element--known as plutonium 239--was found
to undergo fission and to release great energy when bombarded
by slow neutrons.
That, Dr. Seaborg would say later, gave plutonium 239 ``the
potential for serving as the explosive ingredient for a
nuclear bomb.''
In 1942, at the age of 30, Dr. Seaborg took a leave of
absence from the University of California to join the
Manhattan Project, the code name for the U.S. World War II
effort to develop an atomic bomb. Since Nazi Germany was
believed to be engaged in a similar effort, the project was
given the highest wartime priority.
[[Page 3399]]
Assigned to a laboratory at the University of Chicago, Dr.
Seaborg was chief of a Manhattan Project unit that was trying
to devise a way of isolating large amounts of plutonium from
uranium. By 1943, they had separated enough plutonium to send
samples to the Manhattan Project scientists working at the
laboratories at Los Alamos, N.M., where it was needed for
some crucial experiments.
To arrange for the return of the plutonium to the Chicago
laboratory, Dr. Seaborg had to devise a shortcut around the
cumbersome and top secret wartime security apparatus. Lacking
clearance to enter the Los Alamos laboratories, he took his
wife on a vacation to nearby Santa Fe, where one morning he
had breakfast with one of the Los Alamos physicists. At the
restaurant after the meal, the physicist handed over the
plutonium, which Dr. Seaborg placed in his suitcase and took
back to Chicago on a train.
By 1945, there had been enough plutonium produced to build
two atomic bombs, including the one dropped on Nagasaki,
Japan, three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
Shortly thereafter, Japan capitulated and on Aug. 14, 1945,
the war ended.
In 1946, Dr. Seaborg returned to Berkeley as a full
professor, where he continued his prewar research on the
discovery of new elements. He was associate director of the
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory and chief of its nuclear
chemistry research section from 1954 to 1958. He became
chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley in
1958 and served in that capacity until his 1961 appointment
as chairman of the AEC.
Glenn Theodore Seaborg was born in the small mining town of
Ishpeming, on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. At the age of
10, he moved to a suburb of Los Angeles with his family. He
was first in his class and valedictorian in high school, and
in September 1929, he entered the University of California at
Los Angeles. To raise money for his college expenses he was a
stevedore, an apricot picker, a laboratory assistant at a
rubber company and an apprentice Linotype operator for the
Los Angeles Herald. He was an assistant in the UCLA chemistry
laboratory and a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
On graduating from UCLA, he transferred to the University
of California's Berkeley campus where he had a teaching
assistantship and a fellowship to study nuclear chemistry
under the noted chemist, Gilbert N. Lewis. He received a
doctorate in chemistry at Berkeley in 1937, then became a
research associate under Lewis and later an instructor in
chemistry.
He was a popular classroom teacher, but it was in the
laboratory that Dr. Seaborg made his mark in the scientific
community. There his co-worker, McMillan, he demonstrated
that by bombarding uranium with neutrons, a new element--
heavier than uranium--could be identified and produced. He
called it neptunium after Neptune, the planet beyond Uranus
in the solar system.
Building on this demonstration, Dr. Seaborg directed a team
that employed a similar process to isolate the next of what
came to be known as the transurnium elements--those with
nuclei heavier than uranium, which had been the heaviest of
the known elements. This next new element was named
plutonium, after Pluto, the planet beyond Neptune in the
solar system.
This would become the critical element in the development
of atomic war weapons. After World War II, Dr. Seaborg
continued his work on transuranium elements in the Berkeley
laboratories, discovering substances later called berkelium,
californium, einsteinium, fermium, mendelevium, nobelium and
``seaborgium,'' which was officially accepted as the name for
element 106 in August 1997.
In his presentation speech on the awarding of the 1951
Nobel Prize, A.F. Westgren of the Royal Swedish Academy said
Dr. Seaborg had ``written one of the most brilliant pages in
the history of discovery of chemical elements.''
As a member of the General Advisory Committee of the AEC,
Dr. Seaborg endorsed--reluctantly--the postwar crash program
that developed the hydrogen bomb.
``Although I deplore the prospect of our country's putting
a tremendous effort into the H-bomb, I must confess that I
have been unable to come to the conclusion that we should
not,'' he said.
On his appointment as chancellor of the University of
California at Berkeley in 1958, Dr. Seaborg gave up his
research work. For the next three years, he supervised what
Newsweek magazine called ``possibly the best faculty in the
United States.''
His 1961 appointment as AEC chairman made him the first
scientist to direct the commission, and he was an insider and
adviser to President Kennedy and U.S. negotiator Averell
Harriman in the talks with the Soviet Union that led to the
Limited Test Ban Treaty. Ratified by the Senate in September
1963, the treaty banned above-ground nuclear tests and
committed the United States and the Soviet Union to seeking
``discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons
for all time.'' For Dr. Seaborg, who had hoped for
comprehensive prohibition of nuclear tests, the treaty was
only a partial victory.
On leaving the AEC in summer 1971, Dr. Seaborg told NBC's
``Meet the Press'' that the commission's major achievement
under his leadership was ``the development of economic
nuclear power and the placement of that in the domain of
private enterprise.'' In addition to the Limited Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty, he also mentioned the start-up of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the signing of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
He observed, somewhat ruefully, that it was the Department
of the Defense, not the AEC, that had full control of the
U.S. nuclear weapons program.
On rejoining the faculty of the University of California at
Berkeley, following his departure from the AEC, Dr. Seaborg
held the rank of university professor--the highest academic
distinction. In 1983, concerned with the quality of science
education, he became a professor in the university's graduate
school of education.
He was a former president of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, and a recipient of the Enrico
Fermi Award of the AEC and the Priestly Medal of the American
Chemical Society. In 1991, he received the National Medal of
Science, the nation's highest award for scientific
achievement.
In 1942, Dr. Seaborg married Helen L. Griggs, with whom he
had four sons and two daughters. When his children were
young, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist was an enthusiastic
participant in family baseball, volleyball and basketball
games and in swimming contests.
One of his sons, Peter Glenn Seaborg, died in May of
1997.
____________________
RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI,
section 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for
publication in the Congressional Record, the Rules of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
The Rules follow:
Committee on the Judiciary
i. meetings of the committee
1. Meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem
necessary on three days notice or in the alternative with the
consent of the Ranking Minority Member or pursuant to the
provision of the Standing Rules of the Senate, as amended.
2. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or
any Subcommittee shall file with the Committee, at least 48
hours in advance of the hearing, a written statement of his
testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee
or Subcommittee prescribes.
3. On the request of any Member, a nomination or bill on
the agenda of the Committee will be held over until the next
meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs
later.
ii. quorums
1. Ten Members shall constitute a quorum of the Committee
when reporting a bill or nomination; provided that proxies
shall not be counted in making a quorum.
2. For the purpose of taking sworn testimony, a quorum of
the Committee and each Subcommittee thereof, now or hereafter
appointed, shall consist of one Senator.
iii. proxies
When a record vote is taken in the Committee on any bill,
resolution, amendment, or any other question, a quorum being
present, a Member who is unable to attend the meeting may
submit his vote by proxy, in writing or by telephone, or
through personal instructions. A proxy must be specific with
respect to the matters it addresses.
iv. bringing a matter to a vote
The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to
bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is
objection to bring the matter to a vote without further
debate, a rollcall vote of the Committee shall be taken, and
debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter
to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the
affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
v. subcommittees
1. Any Member of the Committee may sit with any
Subcommittee during its hearings or any other meeting, but
shall not have the authority to vote on any matter before the
Subcommittee unless he is a Member of such Subcommittee.
2. Subcommittees shall be considered de novo whenever there
is a change in the Subcommittee chairmanship and seniority on
the particular Subcommittee shall not necessarily apply.
3. Except for matters retained at the full Committee,
matters shall be referred to the appropriate Subcommittee or
Subcommittees by the chairman, except as agreed by a majority
vote of the Committee or by the agreement of the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member.
vi. attendance rules
1. Official attendance at all Committee markups and
executive sessions of the Committee shall be kept by the
Committee Clerk. Official attendance at all Subcommittee
markups and executive sessions shall be kept by the
Subcommittee Clerk.
2. Official attendance at all hearings shall be kept,
provided that Senators are notified
[[Page 3400]]
by the Committee Chairman and ranking Member, in the case of
Committee hearings, and by the Subcommittee Chairman and
ranking Member, in the case of Subcommittee hearings, 48
hours in advance of the hearing that attendance will be
taken; otherwise, no attendance will be taken. Attendance at
all hearings is encouraged.
____________________
RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI
requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedures of the
Committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record of the
first year of each Congress. On January 20, 1999, the committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a business meeting during
which the members of the Committee unanimously adopted rules to govern
the procedures of the Committee. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI,
today I am submitting for printing in the Congressional Record a copy
of the Rules of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pursuant to S. Res. 20, Committee on Labor and Human
Resources name was changed to Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions on January 19, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules follow:
Rules of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
(As adopted in executive session January 20, 1999)
Rule 1.--Subject to the provisions of rule XXVI, paragraph
5, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, regular meetings of
the committee shall be held on the second and fourth
Wednesday of each month, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-430,
Dirksen Senate Office Building. The chairman may, upon proper
notice, call such additional meetings as he may deem
necessary.
Rule 2.--The chairman of the committee or of a
subcommittee, or if the chairman is not present, the ranking
majority member present, shall preside at all meetings.
Rule 3.--Meetings of the committee or a subcommittee,
including meetings to conduct hearings, shall be open to the
public except as otherwise specifically provided in
subsections (b) and (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of
the Senate.
Rule 4.--(a) Subject to paragraph (b), one-third of the
membership of the committee, actually present, shall
constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business.
Any quorum of the committee which is composed of less than a
majority of the members of the committee shall include at
least one member of the majority and one member of the
minority.
(b) A majority of the members of the subcommittee, actually
present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of
transacting business: provided, no measure or matter shall be
ordered reported unless such majority shall include at least
one member of the minority who is a member of the
subcommittee. If, at any subcommittee meeting, a measure or
matter cannot be ordered reported because of the absence of
such a minority member, the measure or matter shall lay over
for a day. If the presence of a member of the minority is not
then obtained, a majority of the members of the subcommittee,
actually present, may order such measure or matter reported.
(c) No measure or matter shall be ordered reported from the
committee or a subcommittee unless a majority of the
committee or subcommittee is actually present at the time
such action is taken.
Rule 5.--With the approval of the chairman of the committee
or subcommittee, one member thereof may conduct public
hearings other than taking sworn testimony.
Rule 6.--Proxy voting shall be allowed on all measures and
matters before the committee or a subcommittee if the absent
member has been informed of the matter on which he is being
recorded and has affirmatively requested that he be so
recorded. While proxies may be voted on a motion to report a
measure or matter from the committee, such a motion shall
also require the concurrence of a majority of the members who
are actually present at the time such action is taken.
The committee may poll any matters of committee business as
a matter of unanimous consent; provided that every member is
polled and every poll consists of the following two
questions:
(1) Do you agree or disagree to poll the proposal; and
(2) Do you favor or oppose the proposal.
Rule 7.--There shall be prepared and kept a complete
transcript or electronic recording adequate to fully record
the proceedings of each committee or subcommittee meeting or
conference whether or not such meetings or any part thereof
is closed pursuant to the specific provisions of subsections
(b) and (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
unless a majority of said members vote to forgo such a
record. Such records shall contain the vote cast by each
member of the committee or subcommittee on any question on
which a ``yea and nay'' vote is demanded, and shall be
available for inspection by any committee member. The clerk
of the committee, or the clerk's designee, shall have the
responsibility to make appropriate arrangements to implement
this rule.
Rule 8.--The committee and each subcommittee shall
undertake, consistent with the provisions of rule XXVI,
paragraph 4, of the Standing rules of the Senate, to issue
public announcement of any hearing it intends to hold at
least one week prior to the commencement of such hearing.
Rule 9.--The committee or a subcommittee shall, so far as
practicable, require all witnesses heard before it to file
written statements of their proposed testimony at least 24
hours before a hearing, unless the chairman and the ranking
minority member determine that there is good cause for
failure to so file, and to limit their oral presentation to
brief summaries of their arguments. The presiding officer at
any hearing is authorized to limit the time of each witness
appearing before the committee or a subcommittee. The
committee or a subcommittee shall, as far as practicable,
utilize testimony previously taken on bills and measures
similar to those before it for consideration.
Rule 10.--Should a subcommittee fail to report back to the
full committee on any measure within a reasonable time, the
chairman may withdraw the measure from such subcommittee and
report that fact to the full committee for further
disposition.
Rule 11.--No subcommittee may schedule a meeting or hearing
at a time designated for a hearing or meeting of the full
committee. No more than one subcommittee executive meeting
may be held at the same time.
Rule 12.--It shall be the duty of the chairman in
accordance with section 133(c) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, to report or cause to
be reported to the Senate, any measure or recommendation
approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken,
necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote in the Senate.
Rule 13.--Whenever a meeting of the committee or
subcommittee is closed pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (b) or (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of
the Senate, no person other than members of the committee,
members of the staff of the committee, and designated
assistants to members of the committee shall be permitted to
attend such closed session, except by special dispensation of
the committee or subcommittee or the chairman thereof.
Rule 14.--The chairman of the committee or a subcommittee
shall be empowered to adjourn any meeting of the committee or
a subcommittee if a quorum is not present within fifteen
minutes of the time schedule for such meeting.
Rule 15.--Whenever a bill or joint resolution repealing or
amending any statute or part thereof shall be before the
committee or a subcommittee for final consideration, the
clerk shall place before each member of the committee or
subcommittee a print of the statute or the part or section
thereof to be amended or replaced showing by stricken-through
type, the part or parts to be omitted and in italics, the
matter proposed to be added, if a member makes a timely
request for such print.
Rule 16.--An appropriate opportunity shall be given the
minority to examine the proposed text of committee reports
prior to their filing or publication. In the event there are
supplemental, minority, or additional view, and appropriate
opportunity shall be given the majority to examine the
proposed text prior to filing or publication.
Rule 17.--(a) The committee, or any subcommittee, may issue
subpoenas, or hold hearings to take sworn testimony or hear
subpoenaed witnesses, only if such investigative activity has
been authorized by majority vote of the committee.
(b) For the purpose of holding a hearing to take sworn
testimony or hear subpoenaed witnesses, three members of the
committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:
provided, with the concurrence of the chairman and ranking
minority member of the committee or subcommittee, a single
member may hear subpoenaed witnesses or take sworn testimony.
(c) the committee may, by a majority vote, delegate the
authority to issue subpoenas to the chairman of the committee
or a subcommittee, or to any member designated by such
chairman. Prior to the issuance of each subpoena, the ranking
minority member of the committee or subcommittee, and any
other member so requesting, shall be notified regarding the
identity of the person to whom it will be issued and the
nature of the information sought and its relationship to the
authorized investigative activity, except where the chairman
of the committee or subcommittee, in consultation with the
ranking minority member, determines that such notice would
unduly impede the investigation. All information obtained
pursuant to such investigative activity shall be made
available as promptly as possible to each member of the
committee requesting same, or to any assistant to a member of
the committee, designated by such member in writing, but the
use of any such information is subject to restrictions
imposed by the rules of the Senate. Such information, to the
extent that it
[[Page 3401]]
is relevant to the investigation shall, if requested by a
member, be summarized in writing as soon as practicable. Upon
the request of any member, the chairman of the committee or
subcommittee shall call an executive session to discuss such
investigative activity or the issuance of any subpoena in
connection therewith.
(d) Any witness summoned to testify at a hearing, or any
witness giving sworn testimony, may be accompanied by counsel
of his own choosing who shall be permitted, while the witness
is testifying, to advise him of his legal rights.
(e) No confidential testimony taken or confidential
material presented in an executive hearing, or any report of
the proceedings of such an executive hearing, shall be made
public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary,
unless authorized by a majority of the members of the
committee or subcommittee.
Rule 18.--Presidential nominees shall submit a statement of
their background and financial interests, including the
financial interests of their spouse and children living in
their household, on a form approved by the committee which
shall be sworn to as to its completeness and accuracy. The
committee form shall be in two parts--
(I) information relating to employment, education and
background of the nominee relating to the position to which
the individual is nominated, and which is to be made public;
and,
(II) information relating to financial and other background
of the nominee, to be made public when the committee
determines that such information bears directly on the
nominee's qualifications to hold the position to which the
individual is nominated.
Information relating to background and financial interests
(parts I and II) shall not be required of (a) candidates for
appointment and promotion in the Public Health Service Corps;
and (b) nominees for less than full-time appointments to
councils, commissions or boards when the committee determines
that some or all of the information is not relevant to the
nature of the position. Information relating to other
background and financial interests (part II) shall not be
required of any nominee when the committee determines that it
is not relevant to the nature of the position.
Committee action on a nomination, including hearings or
meetings to consider a motion to recommend confirmation,
shall not be initiated until at least five days after the
nominee submits the form required by this rule unless the
chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority
member, waives this waiting period.
Rule 19.--Subject to statutory requirements imposed on the
committee with respect to procedure, the rules of the
committee may be changed, modified, amended or suspended at
any time; provided, not less than a majority of the entire
membership so determine at a regular meeting with due notice,
or at a meeting specifically called for that purpose.
Rule 20.--In addition to the foregoing, the proceedings of
the committee shall be governed by the Standing Rules of the
Senate and the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946, as amended.
____
[Excerpts from the Standing Rules of the Senate]
Rule XXV
standing committees
1. The following standing committees shall be appointed at
the commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and
have the power to act until their successors are appointed,
with leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within
their respective jurisdictions:
* * * * *
(m)(1) Committee on Health, Education Labor, and Pensions,
to which committee shall be referred all proposed
legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other
matters relating to the following subjects:
1. Measures relating to education, labor, health, and
public welfare.
2. Aging.
3. Agricultural colleges.
4. Arts and humanities.
5. Biomedical research and development.
6. Child labor.
7. Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts
into interstate commerce.
8. Domestic activities of the American National Red Cross.
9. Equal employment opportunity.
10. Gallaudet College, Howard University, and Saint
Elizabeths Hospital.
11. Individuals with disabilities \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Effective Jan. 21, 1999, pursuant to the Committee
Reorganization Amendments of 1999 (S. Res. 28), is amended by
striking ``Handicapped individuals'', and inserting
``Individuals with disabilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Labor standards and labor statistics.
13. Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes.
14. Occupational safety and health, including the welfare
of miners.
15. Private pension plans.
16. Public health.
17. Railway labor and retirement.
18. Regulation of foreign laborers.
19. Student loans.
20. Wages and hours of labor.
(2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a
comprehensive basis, matters relating to health, education
and training, and public welfare, and report thereon from
time to time.
Rule XXVI
committee procedure
1. Each standing committee, including any subcommittee of
any such committee, is authorized to hold such hearings, to
sit and act at such times and places during the sessions,
recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate, to require by
subpoena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and
the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and
documents, to take such testimony and to make such
expenditures out of the contingent fund of the Senate as may
be authorized by resolutions of the Senate. Each such
committee may make investigations into any matter within its
jurisdiction, may report such hearings as may be had by it,
and may employ stenographic assistance at a cost not
exceeding the amount prescribed by the Committee on Rules and
Administration.\3\ The expenses of the committee shall be
paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers
approved by the chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pursuant to section 68c of title 2, United States Code,
the Committee on Rules and Administration issues Regulations
Governing Rates Payable to Commercial Reporting Forms for
Reporting Committee Hearings in the Senate.'' Copies of the
regulations currently in effect may be obtained from the
Committee.
* * * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules,
when the Senate is in session, no committee of the Senate or
any subcommittee thereof may meet, without special leave,
after the conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting
of the Senate commenced and in no case after two o'clock
postmeridian unless consent therefor has been obtained from
the majority leader and the minority leader (or in the event
of the absence of either of such leaders, from his designee).
The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall not
apply to the Committee on Appropriations or the Committee on
the Budget. The majority leader or his designee shall
announce to the Senate whenever consent has been given under
this subparagraph and shall state the time and place of such
meeting. The right to make such announcement of consent shall
have the same priority as the filing of a cloture motion.
(b) Each meeting of a committee, or any subcommittee
thereof, including meetings to conduct hearings, shall be
open to the public, except that a meeting or series of
meetings by a committee or a subcommittee thereof on the same
subject for a period of no more than fourteen calendar days
may be closed to the public on a motion made and seconded to
go into closed session to discuss only whether the matters
enumerated in clauses (1) through (6) would require the
meeting to be closed, followed immediately by a record vote
in open session by a majority of the members of the committee
or subcommittee when it is determined that the matters to be
discussed or the testimony to be taken at such meeting or
meetings--
(1) will disclose matters necessary to be kept secret in
the interests of national defense or the confidential conduct
of the foreign relations of the United States;
(2) will relate solely to matters of committee staff
personnel or internal staff management or procedure;
(3) will tend to charge an individual with crime or
misconduct, to disgrace or injure the professional standing
of an individual, or otherwise to expose an individual to
public contempt or obloquy or will represent a clearly
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual;
(4) will disclose the identity of any informer or law
enforcement agent or will disclose any information relating
to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense
that is required to be kept secret in the interests of
effective law enforcement;
(5) will disclose information relating to the trade secrets
of financial or commercial information pertaining
specifically to a given person if--
(A) an Act of Congress requires the information to be kept
confidential by Government officers and employees; or
(B) the information has been obtained by the Government on
a confidential basis, other than through an application by
such person for a specific Government financial or other
benefit, and is required to be kept secret in order to
prevent undue injury to the competitive position of such
person; or
(6) may divulge matters required to be kept confidential
under other provisions of law or Government regulations.
(c) Whenever any hearing conducted by any such committee or
subcommittee is open to the public, that hearing may be
broadcast by radio or television, or both, under such rules
as the committee or subcommittee may adopt.
(d) Whenever disorder arises during a committee meeting
that is open to the public, or any demonstration of approval
or disapproval is indulged in by any person in attendance of
any such meeting, it shall be the duty of the Chair to
enforce order on his own initiative and without any point of
order being made by a Senator. When the Chair
[[Page 3402]]
finds it necessary to maintain order, he shall have the power
to clear the room, and the committee may act in closed
session for so long as there is doubt of the assurance of
order.
(e) Each committee shall prepare and keep a complete
transcript or electronic recording adequate to fully record
the proceeding of each meeting or conference whether or not
such meeting or any part thereof is closed under this
paragraph, unless a majority of its members vote to forgo
such a record
* * * * *
____
Guidelines of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions With Respect to Hearings, Markup Sessions, and Related Matters
hearings
Section 133A(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act
requires each committee of the Senate to publicly announce
the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing at least
one week prior to the commencement of such hearing.
The spirit of this requirement is to assure adequate notice
to the public and other Members of the Senate as to the time
and subject matter of proposed hearings. In the spirit of
section 133A(a) and in order to assure that members of the
committee are themselves fully informed and involved in the
development of hearings:
1. Public notice of the date, place, and subject matter of
each committee or subcommittee hearing should be inserted in
the Congressional Record seven days prior to the commencement
of such hearing.
2. Seven days prior to public notice of each committee or
subcommittee hearing, the committee or subcommittee should
provide written notice to each member of the committee of the
time, place, and specific subject matter of such hearing,
accompanied by a list of those witnesses who have been or are
proposed to be invited to appear.
3. The committee and its subcommittee should, to the
maximum feasible extent, enforce the provisions of rule 9 of
the committee rules as it relates to the submission of
written statements of witnesses twenty-four hours in advance
of a hearing. When statements are received in advance of a
hearing, the committee or subcommittee (as appropriate)
should distribute copies of such statements to each of its
members.
executive sessions for the purpose of marking up bills
In order to expedite the process of marking up bills and to
assist each member of the committee so that there may be full
and fair consideration of each bill which the committee or a
subcommittee is marking up the following procedures should be
followed:
1. Seven days prior to the proposed date for an executive
session for the purpose of marking up bills the committee or
subcommittee (as appropriate) should provide written notice
to each of its members as to the time, place, and specific
subject matter of such session, including an agenda listing
each bill or other matters to be considered and including:
(a) two copies of each bill, joint resolution, or other
legislative matter (or committee print thereof) to be
considered at such executive session; and
(b) two copies of a summary of the provisions of each bill,
joint resolution, or other legislative matter to be
considered at such executive session; and
2. Three days prior to the scheduled date for an executive
session for the purpose of marking up bills, the committee or
subcommittee (as appropriate) should deliver to each of its
members two copies of a cordon print or an equivalent
explanation of changes of existing law proposed to be made by
each bill, joint resolution, or other legislative matter to
be considered at such executive session.
3. Insofar as practical, prior to the scheduled date for an
executive session for the purpose of marking up bills, each
member of the committee or a subcommittee (as appropriate)
should provide to all other such members two written copies
of any amendment or a description of any amendment which that
member proposes to offer to each bill, joint resolution, or
other legislative matter to be considered at such executive
session.
4. Insofar as practical, prior to the scheduled date for an
executive session for the purpose of marking up bills, the
committee or a subcommittee (as appropriate) should provide
each member with a copy of the printed record or a summary of
any hearings conducted by the committee or a subcommittee
with respect to each bill, joint resolution, or other
legislative matter to be considered at such executive
session.
committee reports, publications, and related documents
Rule 16 of the committee rules requires that the minority
be given an opportunity to examine the proposed text of
committee reports prior to their filing and that the majority
be given an opportunity to examine the proposed text of
supplemental, minority, or additional views prior to their
filing. The views of all members of the committee should be
taken fully and fairly into account with respect to all
official documents filed or published by the committee. Thus,
consistent with the spirit of rule 16, the proposed text of
each committee report, hearing record, and other related
committee document or publication should be provided to the
chairman and ranking minority member of the committee and the
chairman and ranking minority member of the appropriate
subcommittee at least forty-eight hours prior to its filing
or publication.
____________________
RULES OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI,
paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for
publication in the Congressional Record, the Rules of the Special
Committee on Aging.
The rules follow:
Rules of the Special Committee on Aging
(Rules of Procedure)
i. convening of meetings and hearings
1. Meetings. The Committee shall meet to conduct Committee
business at the call of the Chairman.
2. Special Meetings. The Members of the Committee may call
additional meetings as provided in Senate Rule XXVI (3).
(3) Notice and Agenda: (a) Hearings. The Committee shall
make public announcement of the date, place, and subject
matter of any hearing at least one week before its
commencement.
(b) Meetings. The Chairman shall give the members written
notice of any Committee meeting, accompanied by an agenda
enumerating the items of business to be considered, at least
5 days in advance of such meeting.
(c) Shortened Notice. A hearing or meeting may be called on
not less than 24 hours notice if the Chairman, with the
concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines that
there is good cause to begin the hearing or meeting on
shortened notice. An agenda will be furnished prior to such a
meeting.
4. Presiding Officer. The Chairman shall preside when
present. If the Chairman is not present at any meeting or
hearing, the Ranking majority Member present shall preside.
Any Member of the Committee may preside over the conduct of a
hearing.
ii. closed sessions and confidential materials
1. Procedure. All meetings and hearing shall be open to the
public unless closed. To close a meeting or hearing or
portion thereof, a motion shall be made and seconded to go
into closed discussion on whether the meeting or hearing will
concern the matters enumerated in Rule II.3. Immediately
after such discussion, the meeting or hearing may be closed
by a vote in open session of a majority of the Members of the
Committee present.
2. Witness Request. Any witness called for a hearing may
submit a written request to the Chairman no later than
twenty-four hours in advance for his examination to be in
closed or open session. The Chairman shall inform the
Committee of any such request.
3. Closed Session Subjects. A meeting or hearing or portion
thereof may be closed if the matters to be discussed concern:
(1) national security; (2) Committee staff personnel or
internal staff management or procedure; (3) matters tending
to reflect adversely on the character or reputation or to
invade the privacy of the individuals; (4) Committee
investigations; (5) other matters enumerated in Senate Rule
XXVI (5)(b).
4. Confidential Matter. No record made of a closed session,
or material declared confidential by a majority of the
Committee, or report of the proceedings of a closed session,
shall be made public, in whole or in part or by way of
summary, unless specifically authorized by the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member.
5. Broadcasting: (1) Control. Any meeting or hearing open
to the public may be covered by television, radio, or still
photography. Such coverage must be conducted in an orderly
and unobtrusive manner, and the Chairman may for good cause
terminate such coverage in whole or in part, or take such
other action to control it as the circumstances may warrant.
(b) Request. A witness may request of the Chairman, on
grounds of distraction, harassment, personal safety, or
physical discomfort, that during his testimony cameras, media
microphones, and lights shall not be directed at him.
iii. quorums and voting
1. Reporting. A majority shall constitute a quorum for
reporting a resolution, recommendation or report to the
Senate.
2. Committee Business. A third shall constitute a quorum of
the conduct of Committee business, other than a final vote on
reporting, providing a minority Member is present. One Member
shall constitute a quorum for the receipt of evidence, the
swearing of witnesses, and the taking of testimony at
hearings.
3. Polling: (a) Subjects. The Committee may poll (1)
internal Committee matters including those concerning the
Committee's staff, records, and budget; (2) other Committee
business which has been designated for polling at a meeting.
(b) Procedure. The Chairman shall circulate polling sheets
to each Member specifying the matter being polled and the
time
[[Page 3403]]
limit for completion of the poll. If any Member so requests
in advance of the meeting, the matter shall be held for
meeting rather than being polled. The clerk shall keep a
record of polls, if the Chairman determines that the polled
matter is one of the areas enumerated in Rule II.3, the
record of the poll shall be confidential. Any Member may move
at the Committee meeting following a poll for a vote on the
polled decision.
iv. investigations
1. Authorization for Investigations. All investigations
shall be conducted on a bipartisan basis by Committee staff.
Investigations may be initiated by the Committee staff upon
the approval of the Chairman of the Ranking Minority Member.
Staff shall keep the Committee fully informed of the progress
of continuing investigations, except where the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member agree that there exists temporary
cause for more limited knowledge
2. Subpoenas. Subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses or
the production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other
materials shall be issued by the Chairman, or by any other
Member of the Committee designated by him. Prior to the
issuance of each subpoena, the Ranking Minority Member, and
any Member so requesting, shall be notified regarding the
identity of the person to whom the subpoena will be issued
and the nature of the information sought and its relationship
to the investigation.
3. Investigative Reports. All reports containing findings
or recommendations stemming from Committee investigations
shall be printed only with the approval of a majority of the
Members of the Committee.
v. hearings
1. Notice. Witnesses called before the Committee shall be
given, absent extraordinary circumstances, at least forty-
eight hours notice, and all witnesses called shall be
furnished with a copy of these rules upon request.
2. Oath. All witnesses who testify to matters of fact shall
be sworn unless the Committee waives the oath. The Chairman,
or any member, may request and administer the oath.
3. Statement. Witnesses are required to make an
introductory statement and shall file 150 copies of such
statement with the Chairman or clerk of the Committee at
least 72 hours in advance of their appearance, unless the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member determine that there is
good cause for a witness's failure to do so. A witness shall
be allowed no more than ten minutes to orally summarize their
prepared statement.
4. Counsel: (a) A witness's counsel shall be permitted to
be present during his testimony at any public or closed
hearing or depositions or staff interview to advise such
witness of his rights, provided, however, that in the case of
any witness who is an officer or employee of the government,
or of a corporation or association, the Chairman may rule
that representation by counsel from the government,
corporation, or association creates a conflict of interest,
and that the witness shall be represented by personal counsel
not from the government, corporation, or association.
(b) A witness is unable for economic reasons to obtain
counsel may inform the Committee at least 48 hours prior to
the witness's appearance, and it will endeavor to obtain
volunteer counsel for the witness. Such counsel shall be
subject solely to the control of the witness and not the
Committee Failure to obtain counsel will not excuse the
witness from appearing and testifying.
5. Transcript. An accurate electronic or stenographic
record shall be kept of the testimony of all witnesses in
executive and public hearings. Any witness shall be afforded,
upon request, the right to review that portion of such
record, and for this purpose, a copy of a witness's testimony
in public or closed session shall be provided to the witness.
Upon inspecting his transcript, within a time limit set by
the committee clerk, a witness may request changes in
testimony to correct errors of transcription, grammatical
errors, and obvious errors of fact, the Chairman or a staff
officer designated by him shall rule on such request.
6. Impugned Persons. Any person who believes that evidence
presented, or comment made by a Member or staff, at a public
hearing or at a closed hearing concerning which there have
been public reports, tends to impugn his character or
adversely affect his reputation may: (a) file a sworn
statement of facts relevant to the evidence or comment, which
shall be placed in the hearing record;
(b) request the opportunity to appear personally before the
Committee to testify in his own behalf; and
(c) submit questions in writing which he requests be used
for the cross-examination of other-witnesses called by the
Committee. The Chairman shall inform the Committee of such
requests for appearance or cross-examination. If the
Committee so decides; the requested questions, or paraphrased
versions or portions of them, shall be put to the other
witness by a Member of by staff.
7. Minority Witnesses. Whenever any hearing is conducted by
the Committee, the minority on the Committee shall be
entitled, upon request made by a majority of the minority
Members to the Chairman, to call witnesses selected by the
minority to testify or produce documents with respect to the
measure or matter under consideration during at least one day
of the hearing. Such request must be made before the
completion of the hearing or, if subpoenas are required to
call the minority witnesses, no later than three days before
the completion of the hearing.
8. Conduct of Witnesses, Counsel and Members of the
Audience. If, during public or executive sessions, a witness,
his counsel, or any spectator conducts himself in such a
manner as to prevent, impede, disrupt, obstruct, or interfere
with the orderly administration of such hearing the Chairman
or presiding Member of the Committee present during such
hearing may request the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, his
representative or any law enforcement official to eject said
person from the hearing room.
vi. depositions and commissions
1. Notices. Notices for the taking of depositions in an
investigation authorized by the Committee shall be authorized
and issued by the Chairman or by a staff officer designated
by him. Such notices shall specify a time and place for
examination, and the name of the staff officer or officers
who will take the deposition. Unless otherwise specified, the
deposition shall be in private. The Committee shall not
initiate procedures leading to criminal or civil enforcement
proceedings for a witness's failure to appear unless the
deposition notice was accompanied by a Committee subpoena.
2. Counsel. Witness may be accompanied at a deposition by
counsel to advise them of their rights, subject to the
provisions of Rule V.4.
3. Procedure. Witnesses shall be examined upon oath
administered by an individual authorized by local law to
administer oaths. Questions shall be propounded orally by
Committee staff. Objections by the witnesses as to the form
of questions shall be noted for the record. If a witness
objects to a question and refuses to testify on the basis of
relevance or privilege, the Committee staff may proceed with
the deposition, or may at that time or at a subsequent time,
seek a ruling by telephone or otherwise on the objection from
a Member of the Committee. If the Member overrules the
objection, he may refer the matter to the Committee or he may
order and direct the witness to answer the question, but the
Committee shall not initiate the procedures leading to civil
or criminal enforcement unless the witness refuses to testify
after he has been ordered and directed to answer by a Member
of the Committee.
4. Filing. The Committee staff shall see that the testimony
is transcribed or electronically recorded. If it is
transcribed, the witness shall be furnished with a copy for
review. No later than five days thereafter, the witness shall
return a signed copy, and the staff shall enter the changes,
if any, requested by the witness in accordance with Rule V.6.
If the witness fails to return a signed copy, the staff shall
note on the transcript the date a copy was provided and the
failutre to return it. The individual administering the oath
shall certify on the transcript that the witness was duly
sworn in his presence, the transcriber shall certify that the
transcript is a true record to the testimony, and the
transcript shall then be filed with the Committee Clerk.
Committee staff may stipulate with the witness to changes in
this procedure; deviations from the procedure which do not
substantially impair the reliability of the record shall not
relieve the witness from his obligation to testify
truthfully.
5. Commissions. The Committee may authorize the staff, by
issuance of commissions, to fill in prepared subpoenas,
conduct field hearings, inspect locations, facilities, or
systems of records, or otherwise act on behalf of the
Committee. Commissions shall be accompanied by instructions
from the Committee regulating their use.
vii. subcommittees
1. Establishment. The Committee will operate as a Committee
of the Whole, reserving to itself the right to establish
temporary subcommittees at any time by majority vote. The
Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority
Member shall be ex officio Members of all subcommittees.
2. Jurisdiction. Within its jurisdiction as described in
the Staffing Rules of the Senate, each subcommittee is
authorized to conduct investigations, including use of
subpoenas, depositions, and commissions.
3. Rules. A subcommittee shall be governed by the Committee
rules, except that its quorum for all business shall be one-
third of the subcommittee Membership, and for hearings shall
be one Member.
viii. reports
Committee reports incorporating Committee findings and
recommendations shall be printed only with the prior approval
of the Committee, after an adequate period for review and
comment. The printing, as Committee documents, of materials
prepared by staff for informational purposes, or the printing
of materials not originating with the Committee or staff,
shall require prior consultation with the minority staff;
these publications shall have the following language printed
on the cover of the document:
[[Page 3404]]
``Note: This document has been printed for informational
purposes. It does not represent either findings or
recommendations formally adopted by the Committee.''
ix. amendment of rules
The rules of the Committee may be amended or revised at any
time, provided that not less than a majority of the Committee
present so determine at a Committee meeting preceded by at
least 3 days notice of the amendments or revisions
proposed.
____________________
RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Rule
XXVI, Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for printing in the
Congressional Record the Rules of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
for the 106th Congress, as adopted by the Committee on March 1, 1999.
The rules follow:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs Rules of Procedure
I. MEETINGS
(a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Committee shall meet on
the first Wednesday of each month. The Chairman may, upon
proper notice, call such additional meetings as he deems
necessary.
(b) Except as provided in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of
paragraph 5 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public. The
Committee shall prepare and keep a complete transcript or
electronic recording adequate to fully record the proceedings
of each meeting whether or not such meeting or any part
thereof is closed to the public.
(c) The Chairman of the Committee or the Ranking Majority
Member present in the absence of the Chairman, or such other
Member as the Chairman may designate, shall preside at all
meetings.
(d) No meeting of the Committee shall be scheduled except
by majority vote of the Committee or by authorization of the
Chairman of the Committee.
(e) The Committee shall notify the office designated by the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the time, place, and
purpose of each meeting. In the event such meeting is
canceled, the Committee shall immediately notify such
designated office.
(f) Written notice of a Committee meeting, accompanied by
an agenda enumerating the items of business to be considered,
shall be sent to all Committee members at least 72 hours (not
counting Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) in advance
of each meeting. In the event that the giving of such 72-hour
notice is prevented by unforeseen requirements or Committee
business, the Committee staff shall communicate notice by the
quickest appropriate means to members or appropriate staff
assistants of Members and an agenda shall be furnished prior
to the meeting.
(g) Subject to the second sentence of this paragraph, it
shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any
amendment in the first degree proposed to any measure under
consideration by the Committee unless a written copy of such
amendment has been delivered to each member of the Committee
at least 24 hours before the meeting at which the amendment
is to be proposed. This paragraph may be waived by a majority
vote of the members and shall apply only when 72-hour written
notice has been provided in accordance with paragraph (f).
II. QUORUMS
(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), seven
members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the
reporting or approving of any measure or matter or
recommendation. Four members of the Committee shall
constitute a quorum for purposes of transacting any other
business.
(b) In order to transact any business at a Committee
meeting, at least one member of the minority shall be
present. If, at any meeting, business cannot be transacted
because of the absence of such a member, the matter shall lay
over for a calendar day. If the presence of a minority member
is not then obtained, business may be transacted by the
appropriate quorum.
(c) One member shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of
receiving testimony.
III. VOTING
(a) Votes may be cast by proxy. A proxy shall be written
and may be conditioned by personal instructions. A proxy
shall be valid only for the day given.
(b) There shall be a complete record kept of all Committee
action. Such record shall contain the vote cast by each
member of the Committee on any question on which a roll call
vote is requested.
IV. HEARINGS AND HEARING PROCEDURES
(a) Except as specifically otherwise provided, the rules
governing meetings shall govern hearings.
(b) At least 1 week in advance of the date of any hearing,
the Committee shall undertake, consistent with the provisions
of paragraph 4 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, to make public announcements of the date, place,
time, and subject matter of such hearing.
(c) The Committee shall require each witness who is
scheduled to testify at any hearing to file 40 copies of such
witness' testimony with the Committee not later than 48 hours
prior to the witness' scheduled appearance unless the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member determine there is good
cause for failure to do so.
(d) The presiding member at any hearing is authorized to
limit the time allotted to each witness appearing before the
Committee.
(e) The Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee, is authorized to subpoena
the attendance of witnesses and the production of memoranda,
documents, records, and any other materials. If the Chairman
or a Committee staff member designated by the Chairman has
not received from the Ranking Minority Member or a Committee
staff member designated by the Ranking Minority Member notice
of the Ranking Minority Member's nonconcurrence in the
subpoena within 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
Federal holidays) of being notified of the Chairman's
intention to subpoena attendance or production, the Chairman
is authorized following the end of the 48-hour period
involved to subpoena the same without the Ranking Minority
Member's concurrence. Regardless of whether a subpoena has
been concurred in by the Ranking Minority Member, such
subpoena may be authorized by vote of the Members of the
Committee. When the Committee or Chairman authorizes a
subpoena, the subpoena may be issued upon the signature of
the Chairman or of any other member of the Committee
designated by the Chairman.
(f) Except as specified in Committee Rule VII (requiring
oaths, under certain circumstances, at hearings to confirm
Presidential nominations), witnesses at hearings will be
required to give testimony under oath whenever the presiding
member deems such to be advisable.
V. MEDIA COVERAGE
Any Committee meeting or hearing which is open to the
public may be covered by television, radio, and print media.
Photographers, reporters, and crew members using mechanical
recording, filming or broadcasting devices shall position and
use their equipment so as not to interfere with the seating,
vision, or hearing of the Committee members or staff or with
the orderly conduct of the meeting or hearing. The presiding
member of the meeting or hearing may for good cause
terminate, in whole or in part, the use of such mechanical
devices or take such other action as the circumstances and
the orderly conduct of the meeting or hearing may warrant.
VI. GENERAL
All applicable requirements of the Standing Rules of the
Senate shall govern the Committee.
VII. PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS
(a) Each Presidential nominee whose nomination is subject
to Senate confirmation and referred to this Committee shall
submit a statement of his or her background and financial
interests, including the financial interests of his or her
spouse and of children living in the nominee's household, on
a form approved by the Committee which shall be sworn to as
to its completeness and accuracy. The Committee form shall be
in two parts--
(A) information concerning employment, education, and
background of the nominee which generally relates to the
position to which the individual is nominated, and which is
to be made public; and
(B) information concerning the financial and other
background of the nominee, to be made public when the
Committee determines that such information bears directly on
the nominee's qualifications to hold the position to which
the individual is nominated.
Committee action on a nomination, including hearings or a
meeting to consider a motion to recommend confirmation, shall
not be initiated until at least five days after the nominee
submits the form required by this rule unless the Chairman,
with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, waives
this waiting period.
(b) At any hearing to confirm a Presidential nomination,
the testimony of the nominee and, at the request of any
Member, any other witness shall be under oath.
VIII. NAMING OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES
It is the policy of the Committee that no Department of
Veterans Affairs facility shall be named after any individual
unless--
(A) such individual is deceased and was--
(1) a veteran who (i) was instrumental in the construction
or the operation of the facility to be named, or (ii) was a
recipient of the Medal of Honor or, as determined by the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, otherwise performed
military service of an extraordinarily distinguished
character;
(2) a member of the United States House of Representatives
or Senate who had a direct association with such facility;
(3) an Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, a Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, a Secretary of Defense or of a service
branch, or a military or other Federal civilian official of
comparable or higher rank; or
[[Page 3405]]
(4) an individual who, as determined by the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member, performed outstanding service for
veterans;
(B) each member of the Congressional delegation
representing the State in which the designated facility is
located has indicted in writing such member's support of the
proposal to name such facility after such individual; and
(C) the pertinent State department or chapter of each
Congressionally chartered veterans' organization having a
national membership of at least 500,000 has indicated in
writing its support of such proposal.
IX. AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES
The rules of the Committee may be changed, modified,
amended, or suspended at any time, provided, however, that no
less than a majority of the entire membership so determine at
a regular meeting with due notice, or at a meeting
specifically called for that purpose. The rules governing
quorums for reporting legislative matters shall govern rules
changes, modification, amendments, or suspension.
____________________
MILITARY PAY AND BENEFITS BILL
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that the article entitled ``A
Military Problem Money Can't Solve,'' which appeared in this morning's
New York Times, be printed in the Record. It helps to illustrate why
the Senate should have taken a closer look at the provisions of S. 4
before voting on it. Had hearings been held on the bill, and had we
awaited the completion of studies by the CBO, GAO and Defense
Department, perhaps some Senators would have had a chance to become
familiar with the reasons that our service men and women leave the
military. As this article makes clear, retention may depend more on
improving quality of life than increasing pay and pensions.
The article follows:
[The New York Times, Tuesday, Mar. 2, 1999]
A Military Problem Money Can't Solve
(By Lucian K. Truscott 4th)
Los Angeles.--While members of the armed services are
underpaid and over-worked, the bill recently passed by the
Senate that gives them a pay raise doesn't address the real
problem: keeping skilled officers and noncommissioned
officers from leaving in mid-career.
The Army, Navy and Air Force now face serious enlistment
shortfalls. For example, last year the Navy fell 7,000 short
of its recruitment goal. The bill would raise military pay
4.8 percent and increase reenlistment bonuses and retirement
benefits.
But even if the improved benefit package helps attract more
recruits, there will continue to be a shortfall unless the
military does more to keep mid-career soldiers from
resigning.
Over the past few years, I have been in touch with more
than 100 men and women who have resigned from the service,
chiefly because my last two books have been about the
military. Not once have I heard them say that they left the
service because the pay was low. For many, quality-of-life
factors drove them away.
They complain that junior officers and enlisted men and
women with families are assigned to military housing that is
old and badly maintained. On many bases both here and abroad,
there is a shortage of housing, forcing many young families
to live off the base. Civilian landlords in neighborhoods
near military bases often charge above-market rents because
they know military families are a captive market.
Deployments to far-off ``peace-keeping'' missions are
another reason for mid-career attrition. With all of the
services shorthanded, assignments to these hardship missions
are far more frequent than in the past. Moreover, to soldiers
who have been trained to fight, many of these peacekeeping
missions seem pointless.
But the complaint I've heard as often as any other has been
about the system for advancement. One former officer told me
that the military's traditional ``zero defects'' policy now
applies to careers, not just to the readiness of a unit or to
effectiveness in combat. One bad rating from a senior officer
can end a career. ``Everyone seems afraid to take the
slightest chance at making a mistake,'' he said, for fear of
getting a bad review.
So the mid-level officers may be jumping ship because the
solution--which would include dissolving the unfair ratings
system--is too radical to ever be considered.
Dissatisfaction with the overall ratings system for
officers also helps to explain why the 20 percent increase in
retirement benefits called for in the Senate bill is unlikely
to improve retention rates. There are fewer slots as you go
higher in rank, so promotions get harder.
In the past, for example, a major who wasn't promoted to
lieutenant colonel could stay at the same rank and still get
full retirement benefits after 20 years of service. Now many
of those who don't get promoted are asked to leave the
military.
The new officer rating system, established a year ago, has
rigorous quotas that insure that only a certain number of
soldiers are promoted--and reach retirement age. The ratings
system uses four levels, but no more than half of the
soldiers a superior officer oversees can be given the top
rating. Soldiers who consistently score at the top are the
ones who will qualify for retirement benefits, the bulk of
which kick in at 20 years of service.
But that means the other half has little or no chance of
qualifying for retirement, and it's this group that is more
likely to resign from the service at mid-career. Several
former military men have told me that after receiving what
they considered to be unfair low ratings as junior officers
they drew the conclusion that they would never be able to
serve 20 years and reach retirement. Each of them decided to
resign early rather than stick around and learn late in his
career that his services were no longer wanted by the
military.
``They tell you that if you're not going to go all the way
to 20, you'd better get out by the end of your eighth year,
because the corporate world won't take you after that,'' one
former soldier explained.
Many former soldiers I have corresponded with have
described their decisions to resign from the military as
complex and painful. But the emotion they express most
frequently is anger.
``I think the most important reason for leaving is that the
Army pays lip service to taking care of its own, but it
really doesn't,'' one former officer wrote.
Still another former military man described the plight of
the mid-career professional soldier this way: ``They are sent
to far-off places with inadequate support, pointless missions
and foolish rules of engagement so the cocktail party set
back in D.C. . . . can have their consciences feel good.''
Many of the military men and women I've interviewed see no
one in senior leadership positions standing up and telling
the politicians that while a pay raise is nice, there are a
lot of other problems that need to be addressed. As one
former officer wrote me, ``Money would help, but it will not
cure.''
____________________
NATIONAL TRIO DAY
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to bring my colleagues
attention to the celebration of National TRIO Day which took place on
Saturday, February 28. National TRIO Day--which was created by a
concurrent resolution during the 99th Congress--is celebrated every
year on the last Saturday of February, and serves as a day of
recognition for the Federal TRIO Programs.
As my colleagues are aware, the TRIO Programs actually consist of
several educational programs: Talent Search; Upward Bound; Upward Bound
Math/Science; Veterans Upward Bound; Student Support Services; Ronald
E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program; and Educational
Opportunity Centers. These programs, established over 30 years ago,
provide services to low-income students and help them overcome a
variety of barriers to obtaining a higher education, including class,
social, and cultural barriers.
Currently, 2,000 colleges, universities and community agencies
sponsor TRIO Programs, and more than 780,000 low-income middle school,
high school, and adult students benefit from the services of these
programs. By lifting students out of poverty, these students can pursue
their highest aspirations and achieve the American dream, even as our
nation is collectively lifted to new heights.
Mr. President, there are 15 TRIO Programs in my home State of Maine
that serve 6,000 aspiring students each year. I know that these
programs work because I have seen and heard of the tangible impact the
programs have had--and continue to have--on individuals in Maine.
The impact of the TRIO Programs speaks for itself when considering
that TRIO graduates can be found in every occupation one can think of,
including doctors, lawyers, astronauts, television reporters, actors,
state senators, and even Members of Congress. In fact, two of our
colleagues in the House of Representatives--Congressman Henry Bonilla
and Congressman Albert R. Wynn--are graduates of the TRIO Programs.
In closing, as we celebrate National TRIO Day, I would like to
encourage my colleagues to learn more about the TRIO Programs in their
respective states, and see for themselves the impact the programs have
had--and continue to have--on their constituents.
[[Page 3406]]
Ensuring that all of our nation's students who desire a higher
education are able to attain it is a goal that I think we can all agree
on--and TRIO makes it possible.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. RES. 51 AND S. RES 52
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of Senate resolutions 51
and 52, which are on the calendar.
I further ask consent that the resolutions be agreed to and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR MEMBERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON PRINTING AND THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the first resolution by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 51) providing for members on the part
of the Senate of the Joint Committee on Printing and the
Joint Committee on the Library.
The resolution was considered and agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 51
Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are
hereby, elected members of the following joint committees of
Congress:
Joint Committee on Printing: Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran,
Don Nickles, Dianne Feinstein, and Daniel K. Inouye.
Joint Committee on the Library: Ted Stevens, Mitch
McConnell, Thad Cochran, Christopher J. Dodd, and Daniel
Patrick Moynihan.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING OF A COLLECTION OF THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEES
OF THE SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the second resolution by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 52) to authorize the printing of a
collection of the rules of the committees on the Senate.
The resolution was considered and agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 52
Resolved, That a collection of the rules of the committees
of the Senate, together with related materials, be printed as
a Senate document, and that there be printed 600 additional
copies of such document for the use of the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 350
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 350 is at the desk.
I ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 350) to improve Congressional deliberation on
proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other
purposes.
Mr. ALLARD. I now ask for its second reading and would object to my
own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 508
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand that Senate bill 508, which
was introduced earlier by Senators Santorum and Allard, is at the desk,
and I ask that it be read the first time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 508) to prohibit implementation of ``Know Your
Customer'' regulations by the Federal banking agencies.
Mr. ALLARD. I now ask for its second reading and would object to my
own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION OF SECRECY--TREATY DOCUMENT 106-2
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following
treaty transmitted to the Senate on March 2, 1999, by the President of
the United States:
The Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Republic of Korea (Treaty Document
106-2).
I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the
first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the
Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the
President's message be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The message of the President is as follows:
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to
ratification, I transmit herewith the Extradition Treaty Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the
Republic of Korea, signed at Washington on June 9, 1998 (hereinafter
the ``Treaty'').
In addition, I transmit for the information of the Senate, the report
of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. The Treaty will
not require implementing legislation.
The Treaty will, upon entry into force, enhance cooperation between
the law enforcement communities of the United States and Korea. It will
provide, for the first time, a framework and basic protections for
extraditions between Korea and the United States, thereby making a
significant contribution to international law enforcement efforts.
The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content
of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to
the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, March 2, 1999.
____________________
MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN SENATE COMMITTEES
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 55
submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 55) making appointments to certain
Senate committees for the 106th Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 55) reads as follows:
S. Res. 55
Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of S. Res.
400 of the 95th Congress, or the provisions of Rule XXV, the
following shall constitute the membership on those Senate
committees listed below for the 106th Congress, or until
their successors are appointed:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Specter (Chairman), Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Graham of Florida, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Murray.
Special Committee on Aging: Mr. Grassley (Chairman), Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Santorum, Mr.
Hagel, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Hutchinson of
Arkansas, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Bayh, Mrs.
Lincoln, and Mr. Bryan.
Committee on Indian Affairs: Mr. Campbell (Chairman), Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye (Vice Chairman), Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr.
Dorgan.
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problems: Mr.
Bennett (Chairman), Mr. Kyl, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms.
Collins,
[[Page 3407]]
Mr. Stevens (ex-officio), Mr. Dodd (Vice Chairman), Mr.
Moynihan, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Byrd (ex-officio).
____________________
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE DODSON SCHOOL FOR CERTAIN IMPACT AID
PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate bill
447 be discharged from the Labor Committee and, further, that the
Senate proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 447) to deem timely filed, and process for
payment, the applications submitted by the Dodson School
Districts for certain Impact Aid payments for fiscal year
1999.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and, finally, that any statements related to the bill appear at
this point in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was deemed
read the third time, and passed as follows:
S. 447
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. IMPACT AID.
The Secretary of Education shall deem as timely filed, and
shall process for payment, an application for a fiscal year
1999 payment under section 8003 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703) from a local
educational agency serving each of the following school
districts if the Secretary receives that application not
later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act:
(1) The Dodson Elementary School District #2, Montana.
(2) The Dodson High School District, Montana.
____________________
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
______
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following
nomination on the Executive Calendar: No. 9.
I finally ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to
the nomination appear at this point in the Record, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return
to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate proceeded to consider the nomination.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of the nomination of James M. Simon, Jr., to be the Assistant
Director of Central Intelligence for Administration. As part of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (S. 1718), the
Senate Created the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence
(ODCI), clarified the DCI's responsibilities for managing the
Intelligence Community, and crated three new leadership positions in
the ODCI: the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence (ADCI) for
Collection, the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis
and Production, and the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for
Administration. According to the Act, the ADCIs were to be appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate.
At Conference, the House agreed to create the three new positions
provided that the position of Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
for Community Management (DDCI/CM) also be created as a position
requiring the advise and consent of the Senate. Therefore the
Conference Report included the three ADCI positions and added the DDCI/
CM position within the Office of the DCI. The ADCIs report directly to
the DDCI/CM. This new leadership structure was enacted into law by P.L.
104-293.
The intent was to create a ``Goldwater-Nichols'' equivalent
legislation for the intelligence Community by breaking down the
barriers to effective community management erected by the very powerful
directors of various intelligence agencies. In many cases, these
directors act unilaterally on the day-to-day decisions concerning
collection, production, and administration within the Community. On May
22, 1998, the Committee favorably reported the nomination of Joan
Dempsey to be the first DDCI/CM. The Senate confirmed her on May 22,
1998.
A great deal of the responsibility for management improvement within
the Intelligence Community will lie with the Assistant Director of
Central Intelligence for Administration. Therefore, the position
requires a strong and determined individual that is prepared to
confront and overcome the inevitable resistance of an entrenched and
calcified bureaucracy.
Mr. James M. Simon, Jr., a career intelligence officer, was nominated
by the President to be the first Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Administration, and the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence held open hearings on his nomination on February 4, 1999.
On February 24, 1999, the Committee voted to favorably report the
nomination of Mr. Simon to he full Senate.
Mr. Simon was born in Montgomery, Alabama on 1 July 1947. He is
married to Susan Woods of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Mr. Simon was commissioned in the US Army in 1969, retiring in 1997
from the active reserve. Trained as a signal officer and in
intelligence, he has commanded a SIGINT/EW company and has been
operations officer of a psychological warfare battalion. He is a
graduate of the Military Intelligence Officers Advanced Course, the
Command and General Staff College, and has completed the Security
Management Course from the national War College.
After discharge, Mr. Simon became a research intern at Radio Free
Europe and served as teaching assistant to the Dean of the University
of Southern California's Graduate Program in International Relations in
Germany prior to returning to the United States to study for a Ph.D.
Mr. Simon has a B.A. in political science from the University of
Alabama and a M.A. in international relations from the University of
Southern California. He held both Herman and Earhart fellowships while
pursuing a Ph.D at USC with emphasis in national security, bureaucracy,
Soviet studies, and Marxism-Leninism. He has given lectures at Harvard,
Cornell, Utah State, the Joint Military Intelligence College, the
Command and General Staff College, the Navy War College, the Air War
College, and the national War College. For two years, he taught Soviet
war fighting at the Air University's course for general officers.
Mr. Simon left USC before completing his dissertation and joined the
CIA in 1975 through its Career Training Program. He served briefly in
the clandestine service before joining the Directorate of
Intelligence's Office of Strategic Research as a military analyst
specializing in tactics and doctrine. He served as chief of a current
intelligence branch as well as of two branches concerned with Soviet
military strategy, doctrine, and plans. From 1986 to 1990 he was in
charge of the intelligence community organization responsible for
asking the imagery constellation. In 1990, he was assigned as the
senior intelligence representative to the US delegation for the
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty in Vienna where he was
principal negotiator for the Treaty's information exchange protocol.
After ratification, in 1991, Mr. Simon was reassigned as Chief of ACIS
Rhein Main in Frankfurt; the Community's facility responsible for the
preparation, debriefing, and reporting of information gained by arms
control inspection teams throughout Europe. In 1993, Mr. Simon became
chief of a division in the Office of European Analysis and in 1996 was
[[Page 3408]]
named Chief of the Collection Requirements and Evaluation Staff.
The Intelligence Committee believes that Mr. Simon is well qualified
for this new position. Accordingly, I again urge my colleagues to
support this nomination and vote in favor of the Nominee.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to join Chairman Shelby in
recommending to the Senate that Mr. James M. Simon be confirmed as the
new Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Administration. Mr.
Simon has demonstrated the essential qualities required for this
position, and I believe the Director of Central Intelligence has acted
wisely in proposing to the President Mr. Simon's nomination.
I am glad the Director of Central Intelligence is fulfilling one of
the obligations imposed by the Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence
Authorization Act. In that Act, Congress--after extended discussions
among the relevant committees--created a new management structure for
the Office of the DCI. That structure included the new positions of
Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence--one for intelligence
collection, one for intelligence analysis, and one for community
administration. The nomination to be considered by the Senate, the
Assistant Director for Administration, will help to play an important
role in ensuring the Intelligence Community is effectively managed.
To date, the DCI has taken the interim steps of appointing acting
Assistant Directors for collection and for analysis. I expect
Presidential nominations for these positions will be forthcoming soon.
I must say, the Senate's wisdom in the Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence
Authorization Act has been confirmed by the DCI's interim appointments.
Prior to the appointments of Mr. Charles Allen and Mr. John Gannon,
Congress and the American people looked to the DCI to manage both the
collection of intelligence information and the analysis of that
information. Without any assistance in these areas, it was literally
his personal responsibility. When the intelligence community fails to
collect adequate information to prevent policy-makers from being
surprised, Congress and the American people blame the DCI. Further,
when the intelligence community fails to marshal its resources to
analyze tough intelligence targets, Congress and the American people
again blame the DCI. The blame was clear, for example, in last year's
Indian nuclear test incident. Affixing the responsibility on the DCI
was warranted, but he did not have the management structure in place to
help him fulfill his responsibilities. The Fiscal Year 1997
Intelligence Authorization Act created a structure to help the DCI
discharge his responsibilities and, following the Indian nuclear tests,
the DCI began filling the new structure. So far, the results of Mr.
Allen's and Mr. Gannon's work demonstrate that community-wide
coordination is appropriate and sorely needed.
Mr. Simon is eminently qualified. He is a career intelligence
officer. He has demonstrated throughout his career the ability to make
tough calls and to be held accountable for those calls. In his most
recent assignment as the head of the CIA's Requirements Evaluation
Staff, he has taken on a task to fix something that has long been
broken. He is working on a way to place a value on the different kinds
of intelligence we collect. To the uninitiated this may sound fairly
unimportant and, perhaps, even easy. But is not. It is hard because it
directly challenges the directors of the heads of the agencies within
the Intelligence Community. For example, it forces the head of signals
intelligence to justify the quality of his efforts relative to the
efforts of another agency that controls human intelligence. It has a
similar effect on judging the value of satellite collection relative to
the other ways we obtain our intelligence information. No agency
director likes this evaluation because it forces questions to be
answered on such fundamental issues as to whether or not community-wide
budget and personnel resources are being directed in the right areas.
Directors naturally resist a comparison of the value of their agency's
work versus the value of the work of other agencies. Nonetheless, Mr.
Simon chose to take on the agency heads in the Intelligence Community
because it was the right thing to do.
The DCI has made an excellent choice in recommending Mr. Simon to the
President. Mr. Simon should be confirmed by the Senate. I believe his
services as the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for
Administration will have a significant and lasting impact on the
Intelligence Community. I urge my colleagues to support this
nomination.
The nomination considered and confirmed follows:
central intelligence
James M. Simon, Jr., of Alabama, to be Assistant Director
of Central Intelligence for Administration. (New Position)
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL GIRL SCOUT WEEK
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of Senate Resolution
48 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 48) designating the week beginning
March 7, 1999, as ``National Girl Scout Week.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am very proud to introduce this
Resolution with my colleague Senator Hutchison, who, like me, is a
former Girl Scout. This Resolution designates next week as National
Girl Scout Week. I am so happy that we are able to recognize the
important achievements of the Girls Scouts with such broad bipartisan
support. Scouting instills the values that really matter--duty, honor,
patriotism and service. I am so proud to honor the Girl Scouts for all
they do to prepare our young women to be leaders for the future.
As a Girl Scout, you participate in a broad range of activities--from
taking nature hikes to taking part in the arts. You serve in local food
banks and learn about politics. The skills, values and attitudes you
learn as a Girl Scout can help guide you through your life. As your
skills grow, so will your self confidence. Eventually you will earn
your badges which will serve as symbols that you are succeeding and
doing something constructive for your community. You learn the
importance of treating other people fairly and with the dignity they
deserve. You have the confidence to know that you can reach your goals.
You can learn to be a leader.
In today's hectic world, Scouts are more important than ever. Young
boys and girls desperately need before and after school activities to
keep their active minds' focused. They need adult role models like
their Girl Scout leaders, who are dedicated to inspiring young people.
As the Senator from Maryland, one of my highest priorities is to
promote structured, community-based after school activities to give
children more help and more ways to learn. After school activities also
keeps children stay out of trouble and keeps them productive. That's
just what the Girl Scouts do. They promote character & responsibility.
They teach the arts and cultural activities. They give kids the tools
for success.
I applaud the Girl Scouts. I also thank them for what they did for me
and what they do for millions of young women across the country. I hope
the Resolution that Senator Hutchison and I have introduced here today
calls more attention to the good work of the Girl Scouts. I hope it
shows that there are solid after school activities that children can
actively participate in
[[Page 3409]]
while learning real life skills. Mr. President, I congratulate the Girl
Scouts as they celebrate their 87th anniversary. I hope my colleagues
will join me in supporting this important Resolution.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to
the resolution appear in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 48) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 48), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 48
Whereas March 12, 1999, is the 87th anniversary of the
founding of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America;
Whereas on March 16, 1950, the Girl Scouts became the first
national organization for girls to be granted a Federal
charter by Congress;
Whereas through annual reports required to be submitted to
Congress by its charter, the Girl Scouts regularly informs
Congress of its progress and program initiatives;
Whereas the Girl Scouts is dedicated to inspiring girls and
young women with the highest ideals of character, conduct,
and service to others so that they may become model citizens
in their communities;
Whereas the Girl Scouts offers girls aged 5 through 17 a
variety of opportunities to develop strong values and life
skills and provides a wide range of activities to meet girls'
interests and needs;
Whereas the Girl Scouts has a membership of nearly
3,000,000 girls and over 850,000 adult volunteers, and is one
of the preeminent organizations in the United States
committed to girls growing strong in mind, body, and spirit;
and
Whereas by fostering in girls and young women the qualities
on which the strength of the United States depends, the Girl
Scouts, for 87 years, has significantly contributed to the
advancement of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning March 7, 1999, as
``National Girl Scout Week''; and
(2) requests the President to issue a proclamation
designating the week beginning March 7, 1999, as ``National
Girl Scout Week'' and calling on the people of the United
States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and
activities.
____________________
NATIONAL READ ACROSS AMERICA DAY
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 56
introduced earlier today by Senators Coverdell and Torricelli.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 56) recognizing March 2nd, 1999, as
the ``National Read Across America Day,'' and encouraging
every child, parent and teacher to read throughout the year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at
this point in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 56) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 56), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 56
Whereas reading is a fundamental part of life and every
American should be given the chance to experience the many
joys it can bring;
Whereas National Read Across America Day calls for every
child in every American community to celebrate and extoll the
virtue of reading on the birthday of America's favorite
Doctor--Dr. Seuss;
Whereas National Read Across America Day is designed to
show every American child that reading can be fun, and
encourages parents, relatives and entire communities to read
to our nation's children;
Whereas National Read Across America Day calls on every
American to take time out of their busy day to pick-up a
favorite book and read to a young boy or girl, a class or a
group of students;
Whereas reading is a catalyst for our children's future
academic success, their preparation for America's jobs of the
future, and our nation's ability to compete in the global
economy;
Whereas the distinguished Chairman Jim Jeffords and Ranking
Member Ted Kennedy of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee have provided significant leadership in
the area of community involvement in reading through their
participation in the Everybody Wins! program;
Whereas Chairman Jim Jeffords has been recognized for his
leadership in reading by Parenting Magazine;
Whereas prominent sports figures such as National Read
Across America Day Honorary Chairman Cal Ripken of the
Baltimore Orioles baseball team, Sandy Alomar of the
Cleveland Indians, and members of the Atlanta Falcons
football team have dedicated substantial time, energy and
resources to encourage young people to experience the joy and
fun of reading;
Whereas the 105th Congress made an historic commitment to
reading through the passage of the Reading Excellence Act
which focused on traditionally successful phonics
instruction, tutorial assistance grants for at-risk kids, and
literacy assistance for parents: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes March 2, 1999 as National Read Across
America Day; and
(2) expresses its wishes that very child in every American
city and town has the ability and desire to read throughout
the year, and receives the parental and adult encouragement
to succeed and achieve academic excellence.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1999
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m.
on Wednesday, March 3. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately
following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date,
the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two
leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to the time for debate
on the motion to proceed to S. 280.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate, then, will convene tomorrow at
9:30 and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the education
flexibility partnership bill. There will have been a total of 4 hours
for debate on the motion tomorrow morning, and following adoption of
the motion, we will begin consideration of the bill itself. Amendments
to the bill are expected to be offered and debated throughout
Wednesday's session and for the remainder of the week. Therefore,
Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day on Wednesday
and Thursday and possibly Friday in an effort to make substantial
progress on this important piece of legislation. After I have a chance
to consult with the Democratic leader, we will give further information
about the schedule on Friday and on Monday of next week.
I yield the floor.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under
the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:34 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, March 3, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate March 2, 1999:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, VICE ARTHUR L. MONEY.
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
LAWRENCE HARRINGTON, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE UNITED STATES
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR
A TERM OF THREE YEARS, VICE L. RONALD SCHEMAN, RESIGNED.
FOREIGN SERVICE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN
SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR PROMOTION IN THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE TO THE CLASSES INDICATED: CAREER
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, CLASS OF CAREER MINISTER:
WARREN J. CHILD, OF MARYLAND
CAREER MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR:
[[Page 3410]]
MARY E. REVELT, OF FLORIDA
JOHN H. WYSS, OF TEXAS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR PROMOTION INTO THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE TO THE CLASS INDICATED:
CAREER MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF COUNSELOR:
WEYLAND M. BEEGHLY, OF VIRGINIA
LARRY M. SENGER, OF WASHINGTON
RANDOLPH H. ZEITNER, OF VIRGINIA
THE FOLLOWING NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE
FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, AND FOR
APPOINTMENT AS CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE
DIPLOMATIC SERVICE, AS INDICATED:
CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF COUNSELOR:
DANNY J. SHEESLEY, OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
RICHARD M. MCGAHEY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR, VICE OLENA BERG, RESIGNED.
____________________
CONFIRMATION
Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate March 2, 1999:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
JAMES M. SIMON, JR., OF ALABAMA, TO BE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR ADMINISTRATION.
THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE NOMINEE'S
COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY
BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
[[Page 3411]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
March 2, 1999
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
PUT THE DECENNIAL CENSUS BACK ON TRACK
______
HON. PHILIP M. CRANE
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in opposition to
the plan of the Census Bureau to use sampling techniques in the
Decennial Census.
The situation is clear: we must abide by the Constitution as we have
in every census for over 200 years. As we all know, Article I Section
II says that ``an actual enumeration'' must be done every 10 years.
Now, for the first time in our history, this is not good enough. Some
feel that counting part of the population and guesstimating the rest is
better than actually counting the population head by head, as the
Constitution requires.
The Director of the Census Bureau, Kenneth Prewitt, said last
Wednesday he would abide by the Supreme Court ruling by using two sets
of numbers in the Decennial Census. Recognizing part of the Court's
decision, Prewitt plans to use enumeration for apportionment. However,
the Census Bureau plans to create a second set of numbers, using
sampling techniques, for redrawing House districts. Although they were
not asked to rule on the constitutionality of sampling, four Justices
said that using sampling for a census is illegal. But, the
Administration continues to include sampling techniques in the
Decennial Census, despite the contradictory rulings of several courts.
Mr. Speaker, this plan will only create more problems. Holding two
censuses, which is exactly what the Bureau is doing by creating two
figures, will double costs, lead to an increase in litigation with
discrepancies over figures, and increase the chance that the census
will not be done in a timely fashion. For the past six years, the
Census Bureau was against a two-figure census for the very same
reasons. This dual-track census is wrong, and they know it.
We in Congress have the responsibility to stand up for the American
people. They do not want two versions of how many people live in our
nation, and have to deal with the resulting confusion for ten years. I
encourage my colleagues to consider this dual-track census plan as we
consider releasing funding for the Commerce, State, and Justice
Departments that is set to expire on June 15. This may be the last
opportunity to put the Decennial Census back on track.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT TAX CUT ACT
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement
Tax Cut Act of 1999. This act, a companion to my Family Education
Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over
education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax
credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children
to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to
devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing
a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to
support academic or extra curricular programs.
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of, if not the
top priority of the American people. After all, many members of
Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of their time
is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals
either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-
federalism of block grants. I propose we go in a different direction by
embracing true federalism by returning control over the education
dollar to the American people.
One of the major problems with centralized control over education
funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based
Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the
needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if
spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically
powerful Representatives or the theories of Education Department
functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as
large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as
they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach
federally-determined ends.
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for
parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over the ends
of education policy to local communities. People in one community may
use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another
community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because
of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in
this bill.
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to
attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most
encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private
scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary
contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-
income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these
programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase
the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-
funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement
raised by publicly-funded vouchers.
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on
education, the question is, ``who should control the education dollar--
politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?'' Mr. Speaker, I
urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in
the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education
Improvement Tax Cut Act of 1999.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE GRATON RANCHERIA RESTORATION ACT
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce legislation
that would restore federal recognition for the Federated Indians of
Graton Rancheria, which is primarily composed of the Coast Miwok and
Southern Pomo tribal members. This is a matter of simple justice,
because in 1966 the United States government terminated the tribe's
status under the California Rancheria Act of 1958.
My bill, the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act, restores all federal
rights and privileges to the tribal members. It reinstates their
political status and makes them eligible for benefits now available to
other federally recognized tribes, such as Native American health,
education, and housing services. The bill also specifically prohibits
gambling on tribal lands affected by the bill.
The earliest historical account of the Coast Miwok peoples, whose
traditional homelands include Bodega, Tomales, Marshall in Marin County
and Sebastopol in Sonoma County, dates back to 1579. Today there are
355 members of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.
Legislation passed by Congress in 1992 and later amended in 1996,
established an Advisory Council in California to study and report on
the special circumstances facing tribes whose status had been
terminated. The Council's final report, which was submitted to Congress
in September 1997, recommended the restoration of the Federated Indians
of the Graton Rancheria.
Mr. Speaker, the tribes of the Graton Rancheria are a rich part of
the North Bay's cultural heritage. Terminating their status was wrong
then, and it would be wrong now for us to continue to deny them the
recognition that they deserve.
[[Page 3412]]
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF JUDGE ED J. HARRIS
______
HON. GENE GREEN
of texas
HON. NICK LAMPSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my colleague (Mr. Lampson) and I ask
all of our colleagues in Congress to join us in paying tribute to an
outstanding individual, Judge Ed J. Harris. Ed passed away on February
10th after leading a long and distinguished life of public service and
civic duty.
Ed Harris devoted his professional and private life to serving his
home state of Texas. After graduating from Southwestern University in
1941, Ed entered the United States Navy to bravely fight for his
country for six years during World War II.
After devoting his energy towards completion of both his law degree
and master's degree, Ed joined the law firm of Martin, Carmona, Cruse,
Micks & Dunten in 1956. Ed was admired by his colleagues for his
devotion to the law and constant strive for excellence, and within two
years he became senior partner. He distinguished himself as a respected
leader and accomplished attorney for the next 21 years.
Ed spent thirty-three years of his extraordinary professional career
as an elected public official, which in of itself is a testament of his
outstanding leadership capacity and desire to serve the community he
loved. He won the first of his 17 successful elections in 1961 when he
was elected as Galveston City Councilman, where he served for three
years. In 1962, Ed's devotion to service led to his election to the
Texas Legislature as a State Representative, where he honorably served
for fourteen years.
After Ed completed his tenure as State Representative, he became
State District Judge, where he presided over the administrative, civil,
and criminal dockets until his 1993 retirement. Ed is remembered by all
he encountered for his kindness and his dedication to the law.
Ed lead a rich and active civic life that enhanced the lives of the
people in his community. He was a devoted parishioner of Moody Memorial
First United Methodist Church in Galveston and was a board member of
McMahan's Chapel, the oldest protestant church in Texas. He continued
his long dedication to the law through his activity in many county and
state bar associations and in the American Judges Association. Ed also
maintained his Navy ties through his participation in the Retired
Officers association and VFW. Ed's desire to help those less fortunate
than he was a constant force in the community. In fact, in 1986 and
1987, Ed rode in the 175 mile, two-day Houston Muscular Dystrophy Bike
Tour, where he earned $14,000 in pledges for this cause. In 1991, Ed
received the 1st Annual Independence Award from North Galveston County
Democrats for his lifetime of devotion to this community.
The death of Ed Harris is a blow to all that loved and respected him.
His years of public service and devotion to his community touched
thousands of lives. Those who were fortunate enough to have known Ed
will never forget his kind spirit, his leadership in the community, and
his dedication and understanding of the law. He has left a legacy that
will never be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, please join us in paying tribute to the life of Ed
Harris. Those of us fortunate enough to have known him are truly
blessed.
____________________
HONORING OUR NATION'S BEST AND BRIGHTEST
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate four
outstanding high school students from my Congressional District, who
were recently named as finalists in the Intel Science Talent Search.
The talent search has given each of these students an opportunity to
demonstrate their unique talents and capacity for innovation. The
students will be honored this week in Washington with the thirty-six
other finalists. Indeed, it is both humbling and inspirational to
listen to the accomplishments of these dynamic individuals.
Trevor Bass, of Great Neck, used a genetic algorithm to analyze the
theory of evolution. At Great Neck South High School, Trevor is the
coach of the math team and has won several awards in math, computer
science and physics. He hopes to attend Harvard University in the fall.
Lauren Cooper, of Roslyn, studied how gender based language
influences our perceptions of Presidential candidates. At Roslyn High
School, Lauren is active in student government and president of the
math club. Lauren plans to attend Duke University in the fall.
Lisa Schwartz, of Roslyn, examined patterns in two-way sequences of
positive integers for her project. At Roslyn High School, Lisa is the
captain of her forensics team and the editor in chief of both her
yearbook and newspaper. She is currently ranked first in her class of
221 students and hopes to attend Harvard University in the fall.
Eric Stern, of Great Neck, has studied the nature of Alzheimer's
disease. At Great Neck South High School, Eric has led the marching
band and science club and has won many music, math, and science awards.
Next year, David hopes to attend Yale University.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the
schools in the Fifth Congressional District of New York. These
students' achievements underscore our community's commitment to
excellence in education. These four scholars truly embody the ideals of
innovation, perseverance, and leadership. I ask all of my colleagues to
join me in honoring and congratulating these young men and women, on
their many accomplishments, and extending to them our best wishes for
continued success in what appears to be a very bright future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BOB LIVINGSTON, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA
______
speech of
HON. JAMES T. WALSH
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 23, 1999
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, Today I would like to extend my best wishes
and prayers to Bob Livingston and his family as he retires from the
House of Representatives. I know he has put the best interests of the
family ahead of politics and I respect him deeply for that.
Chairman Livingston's leadership skills and productive energy will be
sorely missed on appropriations and in the House. I know that others
have praised Bob for his humor and his intellect. I want to echo those
words while I add that Bob Livingston is also a very good friend.
Since I came to Congress, he has been a mentor and much more. He has
provided campaign support when I needed it, but more importantly he has
assisted me with professional guidance as I learned the ropes in the
Appropriations Committee.
The House of Representatives has been affected positively by the work
of our colleague Bob Livingston. I know his future endeavors will be
equally successful. I hope he will remember us as fellow combatants in
a fight to cut government waste and return control to the American
people. It is a great honor to have served during this period with Bob
Livingston and I know his work will be a testament to his dedication to
public service for many, many years to come.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education
Freedom Act of 1999, a bill to empower millions of working-and middle-
class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as
well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in
improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes
its goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for
the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public,
parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their
children.
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of
a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great
economist Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty.'' Consumer
sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the
market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most
successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market
maximizes human happiness.
[[Page 3413]]
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education
``market.'' Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the
federal government. Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,''
public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the
dictates of federal ``educrats'' while ignoring the wishes of the
parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer
sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education
and replacing it with state control.
Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America's parents
express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a
recent study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support
education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public
opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal
bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over
their children's education.
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for
greater control over their children's education by simply allowing
parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education
rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education
programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and
the federal bureaucracy.
The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for
millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send
their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable
to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden
imposed on the American family by Washington.
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to
send their children to public schools. Although public schools are
traditionally financed through local taxes, increasingly, parents who
wish their children to receive a quality education may wish to use
their credit to improve their schools by helping financing the purchase
of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities
such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish
to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.
Greater parental support and involvement is surely a better way to
improve public schools than funneling more federal tax dollars,
followed by greater federal control, into the public schools.
Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than
government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true
community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests
of the students.
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who
choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an
increasingly popular, and successful method, of educating children.
According to recent studies, home schooled children out-perform their
public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects
on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents
spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone
by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their
children in the loving environment of the home.
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control
of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of
liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence
over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family
Education Freedom Act will not only improve America's education, it
will restore a parent's right to choose how best to educate one's own
child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in
federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the
ability of parents to provide for their children's education out of
their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing
parents to devote more of their resources to their children's education
and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the
Family Education Freedom Act.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 28
on February 25, 1999, I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of
the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act.
____________________
HONORING FIRE MARSHAL J.J. PRUITT
______
HON. GENE GREEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues in
Congress to join me in paying tribute to an outstanding individual,
Fire Marshal J.J. Pruitt. J.J. will retire after nearly a half-century
of fighting and investigating fires.
J.J. began his career in 1950 when he entered the Houston Fire
Department. He soon distinguished himself among his colleagues and all
who encountered him through his selflessness, courage, and quick
thinking in the most serious of circumstances.
J.J.'s years of distinguished service lead him to a position of
responsibility and leadership at the head of Harris County's Fire
Marshal's Office. As Marshal, J.J. oversaw a $1.3 million annual
budget, seventeen employees, and 29 full-time volunteer departments. He
led his office in planning and coordination of fire prevention and
control services in the unincorporated areas of Harris County and
investigated arson.
J.J.'s decision to retire is definitely a blow to the Harris County
community. His almost fifty years of dedicated service will leave a
legacy for future fire marshals. Those people who have had the
opportunity to work with J.J. are very fortunate to have benefitted
from his leadership and courageous devotion to saving lives.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Fire Marshal J.J. Pruitt for
his service to Harris County. Those of us who know J.J. are truly
grateful for his leadership and wish him well in all his future
endeavors.
____________________
STERNBERG MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
______
HON. JERRY MORAN
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the
dedication of Dr. Edward H. Hammond on the occasion of the opening to
the new Sternberg Museum of Natural History on the Fort Hays State
University Campus in Hays, Kansas.
In the early 1990's, Fort Hays State University President Edward H.
Hammond made the commitment to raise the funds necessary to move the
impressive Sternberg fossil collection to an equally impressive
facility. After eight years and $11 million dollars, his vision has
been realized. The collection's new home is a state of the art 100,000
square foot dome and adjoining facility which will not only house the
artifacts but provide a realistic journey through the world of
prehistoric flora and fauna.
The Sternberg Collection has long been one of the premier collections
of fossils in the world. It holds the largest collection of fossil
grasses; it has the third largest collection of flying reptiles, and
it's mammal collection ranks in the top 20 in North America. The
Collection's volume of more than 3,750,000 artifacts and specimens
ranks it the world's largest at a small university.
Dr. George M. Sternberg, an army surgeon began the collection in
1866. His sons developed a love for fossil hunting, and his son George
F. eventually established his paleontology headquarters in 1927 at
Kansas State Teachers College of Hays, now Fort Hays State University.
George was made Curator of Geology and Paleontology and continued to
manage and add to the Sternbery Collection until his retirement in
1961. In 1994, the Sternberg Collection was combined with the Museum of
the High Plains under one director, Dr. Jerry Choate.
The completion of this project marks a major achievement for Fort
Hays State University and the community of Hays. The new facility
promises to draw scholars and curious travelers from around the globe
and provide them with an exciting experience in prehistoric times. I
commend University President Edward H. Hammond and Museum Director Dr.
Jerry Choate for their creativity and tenacity in envisioning and
completing this project. It is truly a landmark accomplishment.
[[Page 3414]]
____________________
H. CON. RES. 38, PAUL ROBESON COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMP
______
HON. BOBBY L. RUSH
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join with several of my
colleagues in introducing a Concurrent Resolution urging the U.S.
Postal Service's Citizen Stamp Advisory Committee to issue a
commemorative postage stamp honoring Paul Leroy Robeson.
This bill marks an important step in recognizing the many
contributions Paul Robeson made to America, especially to the African-
American community. Paul Robeson was a well renown African-American
athlete, singer, actor, and advocate for the civil rights of people.
In the midst of segregation, Paul Robeson managed to attend Rutgers
University and Columbia law school where he rose to academic
prominence. Unfortunately, discrimination in the legal field forced
Paul Robeson to leave the practice of law. However, he was able to use
his artistic talents in the theater and music to promote African-
American history and culture.
Paul Robeson is revered around the world for his artistic talents.
Robeson became even more celebrated because of his role as a world
famous singer and actor with exquisite performances that included
Shakespeare's Othello and Showboat. Armed with the knowledge of twenty-
five languages Robeson was able to sing for peace and justice
throughout the world.
Last year marked the 100th birthday of Paul Robeson. It is only
fitting that we celebrate Robeson's legacy by issuing a commemorative
postage stamp in his honor.
____________________
HONOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY WITH A MUSEUM ON THE MALL
______
HON. JOHN LEWIS
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation
to establish an African-American Museum on the mall, in Washington,
D.C., as part of the Smithsonian Institution.
The story of black people in America has yet to be told in its
entirety. African-American history is an integral part of our country,
yet the richness and variety of that history is little-known and
little-understood. As tourists from all over the world come to visit
our Nation's Capital, they will not be able to learn the full history
of black people in America. This museum represents a great
opportunity--to showcase our history in its diversity and breadth, and
to make the understanding of American history more complete.
Did you know that Dr. Daniel Hale Williams was a pioneering heart
surgeon that played a vital role in the discovery of open-heart
surgery? And that Ernest Everett Just, Percy Julian and George
Washington Carver were all outstanding scientists? Educators such as
W.E.B. DuBois and Benjamin E. Mays left an indelible mark on this
country. The Harlem Renaissance produced poets, writers and musicians
like Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes and Duke Ellington. The civil
rights movement changed the face of this country and inspired movements
toward democracy and justice all over the world--producing great
leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Whitney Young. Too few people
know that Benjamin Banneker, an outstanding mathematician, along with
Pierre L'Enfant, designed the District of Columbia. There are many more
and their stories must be told.
Until we understand the African-American story in its fullness and
complexity, we cannot understand ourselves and our nation. We must know
who we are and where we have come from so that we may move forward
together. And we recognize the importance of all our people and all of
our history. The establishment of the museum would be one important
step toward achieving greater understanding as a nation and as a
people.
It is my hope and prayer that as we preserve these important moments
in history, we will inspire future generations to dream, to write, to
march and to teach. As they are able to look back at all that has been
accomplished, they will be able to look forward and believe in the
future of our great country.
I am pleased and delighted that many of my colleagues have joined me
in cosponsoring this bill. I urge all my colleagues of the 106th
Congress to support this worthwhile and important legislation.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE TEACHER TAX CUT ACT
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Teacher Tax Cut Act.
This bill provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit,
thus raising every teacher's take-home pay without increasing federal
spending. Passage of this bill is a major first step toward treating
those who have dedicated their lives to educating America's children
with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals teachers
are underappreciated and underpaid. This must change if America is to
have the finest education system in the world!
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we want
to ensure that the teaching profession attracts the very best people
possible we must make sure that teachers receive the compensation they
deserve. For too long now, we have seen partisan battles and displays
of heightened rhetoric about who wants to provide the most assistance
to education distract us from our important work of removing
government-imposed barriers to educational excellence.
Since America's teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed,
the best way to raise teacher take-home pay is to reduce their taxes.
Simply by raising teacher's take-home pay via a $1,000 tax credit we
can accomplish a number of important things. First, we show a true
commitment to education. We also let America's teachers know that the
American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher
Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality professionals to enter, and remain
in, the teaching profession.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again ask my colleagues to put
aside partisan bickering and unite around the idea of helping educators
by supporting the Teacher Tax Cut Act.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND REHABILITATION ACT OF 1999
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to today introduce, along with
27 cosponsors, the Civil Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 1999.
This legislation grants persons who have been released from
incarceration the right to vote in Federal elections. At a time when
our Nation faces record low voter participation, this legislation
represents an historic means of both expanding voting rights while
helping to reintegrate former felons into our democratic society.
The practice of many states denying voting rights to former felons
represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole
classes of our population based on race, sex, and property. However,
over the past two centuries, these restrictions, along with post-Civil
War exclusions such as the poll tax and literacy requirements, have
been eliminated. Unfortunately, the United States continues to stand
alone among the major industrialized nations in permitting an entire
category of citizens--former felons--to be cut off from the democratic
process.
Denial of suffrage to these individuals is no small matter. A recent
study by the Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch reveals that
some 3.9 million Americans, or one in 50 adults, is either currently or
permanently disenfranchised as a result of state felony voting laws.
This includes an estimated 1.4 million African American men, or 13
percent of the total population of black adult men. In two states
(Alabama and Florida) almost one in three black men is permanently
disenfranchised, while in five other states (Iowa, Mississippi, New
Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming), one in four black men is barred from
voting in elections. Hispanic citizens are also disproportionately
disenfranchised.
In addition to diminishing the legitimacy of our democratic process,
denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the goal of
rehabilitation. Instead of reintegrating such individuals into society,
felony voting restrictions only serve to reaffirm their feelings of
alienation and isolation. As the National Advisory Commission on
Criminal Justice Standards
[[Page 3415]]
and Goals has concluded, ``if correction is to reintegrate an offender
into free society, the offender must retain all attributes of
citizenship.'' Clearly this includes voting--the most basic
constitutive act of citizenship.
The legislation I am today introducing constitutes a narrowly crafted
effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons, while protecting state
prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. The
legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from
prison, and it would only apply to federal elections. As such, my bill
is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the
Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding federal voting rights
laws. The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of groups
interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the
National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the
National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights, among many others.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE MERINO HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Merino High
School boys basketball team on their Class A District 4 Championship.
The Merino players, led by Coach Dave Kautz, will now advance to the
next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Merino High School
boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 4 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE KIM HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Kim High School
boys basketball team on their Class A District 3 Championship.
The Kim players, led by coach Gary Page, will now advance to the next
level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the Colorado
State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Kim High School
boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 3 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE GRANADA HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Granada High
School boys basketball team on their Class A District 2 Championship.
The Granada players, led by Coach Manuel Gonzales, will now advance
to the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at
the Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Granada High
School boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 2 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE SWINK HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Swink High
School girls basketball team on their Class 2A District 4 Championship.
The Swink players, led by Coach DeDe Shiplet, will now advance to the
next level in the state basketball playoffs, and their shot at the
Colorado State 2A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Swink High School
girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 2A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 4 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE FOWLER HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fowler High
School girls basketball team on their Class 2A District 6 Championship.
The Fowler players, led by Coach Greg Fruhwirth, will now advance to
the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State 2A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Fowler High School
girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 2A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 6 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE STRASBURG HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Strasburg High
School girls basketball team on their Class 2A District 8 Championship.
The Strasburg players, led by Coach Merci Ames, will now advance to
the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State 2A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams
[[Page 3416]]
not only win games, but also build the confidence necessary to win
championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have found this
winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Strasburg High
School girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 2A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 8 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE HOEHNE HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hoehne High
School boys basketball team on their Class 2A District 6 Championship.
The Hoehne players, led by Coach Chuck Pugnetti, will now advance to
the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State 2A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Hoehne High School
boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 2A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 6 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE PLATTE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Platte Valley
High School boys basketball team on their Class 3A District 3
Championship.
The Platte Valley players, led by Coach Dave Mekelburg, will now
advance to the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their
shot at the Colorado State 3A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Platte Valley High
School boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 3A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 3 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE WELD CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Weld Central
High School boys basketball team on their Class 3A District 2
Championship.
The Weld Central players, led by Coach Gary Stone, will not advance
to the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at
the Colorado State 3A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Weld Central High
School boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 3A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 2 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE EATON HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Eaton High
School girls basketball team on their Class 3A District 3 Championship.
The Eaton players, led by coach Bob Ervin, will now advance to the
next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State 3A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Eaton High School
girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 3A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 3 Championship.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE CHARLES HARNESS
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
Honorable Charles Harness on the occasion of his retirement from the
Tulare County Board of Supervisors. The people of the Fourth District
have been well served by Charles Harness for the past 8 years.
Charles Harness was first elected to the Board of Supervisors in
1990, and was re-elected without opposition in 1994. In 1998,
Supervisor Harness served as chairman of the board. As the Board's
legislative advocate, Supervisor Harness successfully worked with State
legislators to upgrade county services and promote innovative programs
to better serve the people of Tulare County.
In addition to his Board responsibilities, Supervisor Harness was a
leader in numerous State and regional intergovernmental organizations.
From 1993 to 1997, he was a member of the Governing Board of San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, and in 1996, he
served as its chairman. Supervisor Harness also served on the
Governor's Williamson Act Advisory Task Force. He is a member of the
Government and Finance Operations Committee for the California State
Association of Counties, while remaining active in the Tulare County
Association of Governments.
A native Californian, Supervisor Harness is married with two children
and four grandchildren. He served in the United States Air Force from
1957 to 1961. He attended college at Mount San Antonio, CA State
University Fresno, and the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
Supervisor Harness is a retired farmer, building contractor, and land
developer. He is a life member of the Alta District Historical Society,
a member of the Cutler-Orosi Lions Club, past chairman of the board for
the Dinuba Christian Church, and a former director of the Alta Hospital
Foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Charles
Harness on the occasion of his retirement. Charles Harness has served
the people of the Fourth District for more than 8 years. I urge all my
colleagues to join me in congratulating Charles on a job well done and
to wish him many years of continued happiness and success.
[[Page 3417]]
____________________
LEGISLATION REGARDING INDIA AND PAKISTAN
______
HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H. Res. 84,
legislation recognizing the recent achievements of the Republic of
India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in fostering peaceful
relations between the two nations.
This past week, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India
courageously crossed the long tense Punjabi border to visit his
Pakistani host and counterpart, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This
visit, the first by an Indian premier to Pakistan in ten years, was
only the third such visit since Partition in 1947. Prime Minister
Vajpayee refused to cancel his trip despite a recent horrific and
despicable terrorist attack in Jammu killing 20 civilians.
During their summit, the two leaders signed the ``Lahore
Declaration,'' which commits India and Pakistan to reaching universal
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and reaffirms there
commitment not to conduct future nuclear tests. In this agreement, the
parties have also agreed to engage in bilateral consultations on
security, disarmament, and nonproliferation issues and have issued a
condemnation of terrorism.
Since Partition, India and Pakistan, together the home of more than
one-fifth of the world's population, have fought three wars against
each other. The conflict in Kasmir has cost 30,000 to 50,000 civilian
lives.
H. Res. 84 praises this positive step taken by the leadership of
India and Pakistan in resolving the differences of these two
neighboring countries, sharing so much history and culture, through
diplomacy and celebrates this small victory for dialogue. Accordingly,
I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 84. I request the full text of
H. Res. 84, be printed in the Record at this point.
H. Res.--
Whereas on February 22, 1999, the Prime Minister of India
and the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
signed the ``Lahore Declaration'' to develop and secure a
durable peace and to develop harmonious relations and
friendly cooperation between the two nations;
Whereas the Lahore Declaration states and affirms the
commitment of the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan to the objective of universal nuclear disarmament
and non-proliferation;
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan have reaffirmed their commitment to continue to
abide by their respective unilateral moratorium on conducting
further nuclear test explosions;
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan have agreed to take immediate steps to reduce the
risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons;
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan have agreed to commence bilateral consultations on
security, disarmament and non-proliferation issues within the
context of negotiations on these issues in multilateral form;
and
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan have reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorism in
all its forms and manifestations and their determination to
combat this menace: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the significance and importance of the
Lahore Declaration as a step toward durable peace and the
development of harmonious relations and friendly cooperation
between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan; and
(2) supports the commitment of the Republic of India and
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to universal nuclear
disarmament, non-proliferation, and peaceful regional
relations.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FORMER MICHIGAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLEY A. BODEM
______
HON. BART STUPAK
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Beverly
Bodem, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives
from the 106th Representative District, which is comprised of four
counties in my congressional district.
First elected to the House in 1990, Bev Bodem has just concluded her
service in that body because of the Michigan term limits law. This law
was enacted at the will of the voters of Michigan, but I have to
confess that in this case I believe the law has turned a hard-working
and well-respected public servant out of office.
Bev Bodem was known especially for her constituent service and for
paying attention to the people in her northern Michigan district. These
efforts cut across party lines, and Bev was willing to work arm and arm
with me on issues that affected the people she was elected to serve.
One of the issues which she successfully tackled was the problem
faced by resort operators and other tourism-based industries in her
district, a district which straddles the northern tip of Lower Michigan
to touch both Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, Because the state's school
year began before Labor Day, resorts, restaurants and other tourism
businesses lost much of the summer help. Students themselves had to
leave good summer jobs before the official end of the tourist season.
Bev worked hard to adjust the school year to begin after Labor Day,
benefitting employers, employees, and the many guests and visitors to
our beautiful state.
Bev Bodem has been involved in her district and her community in many
ways outside of her elected office. Such organizations as the Big
Brothers/Big Sisters of Alpena, the Thunder Bay Arts Council, the
Alpena Lions Club, the Alpena General Hospital Auxiliary and the League
of Women Voters have benefited from her willingness to serve and work
for the betterment of her community.
Bev, her husband Dennis and daughter Jennifer, a school teacher,
always presented a living picture of a warm, friendly and proud family
of public service to all northern Michigan. Bev always demonstrated the
``best'' of politics by working hard for all the people of her
district, and she did so with a warm, friendly smile on her face. It
was obvious she enjoyed her legislative career, and her constituents,
enjoyed having her as their representative.
The people of northern Michigan will miss Bev Bodem as the state
representative, and I will miss working with her.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 628
______
HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation I
introduced on February 8, 1999, which would authorize the deployment of
U.S. troops to assist law enforcement in patrolling U.S. borders. I
urge all Members to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.
Our current program to stop drugs from coming into America is a joke.
Eighty percent of the cocaine and heroin smuggled into America is
transited across the U.S.-Mexico border. We are losing the war on
drugs. If hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers can be sent all over
the world to protect other countries, certainly a few thousand can be
redeployed here in the U.S. to help protect America from the scourge of
drugs.
My bill, H.R. 628, authorizes the Department of Defense to assign
U.S. troops to assist federal law enforcement in monitoring and
patrolling U.S. borders, and inspecting cargo, vehicles and aircraft at
points of entry into the U.S. Under the bill such assistance could be
provided only at the express request of the U.S. Attorney General or
Secretary of the Treasury. The bill also mandates special law
enforcement training for troops deployed to border areas, requires all
U.S. troops patrolling the border to be accompanied by federal law
enforcement agents, bars soldiers from making arrests, and requires the
federal government to notify state and local government officials of
any deployment of U.S. troops. Last year the House overwhelmingly
approved a similar provision that I sponsored as an amendment to the FY
1999 DoD bill. The amendment, however, was dropped during a House-
Senate conference.
Make no mistake about it, the Border Patrol, INS and Customs Service
desperately need the help our military could provide. For example, only
three out of every 100 trucks coming into the U.S. from Mexico are
inspected. In addition, recent news reports reveal that the INS is
considering releasing thousands of dangerous illegal aliens currently
being held in detention centers because of funding and manpower
shortages. And finally, in just the last year, federal agents in one
border sector alone seized 132 tons of marijuana and more than 3 tons
of cocaine worth a total of $408 million.
I recently cosigned a letter with a number of my colleagues imploring
the President to fill a backlog of vacant Border Patrol positions. But
clearly this is not enough. By the time those positions are filled with
qualified candidates,
[[Page 3418]]
who knows how many more illegal drugs will hit our streets and reach
our children?
Mr. Speaker, it's time to put a stranglehold on our borders once and
for all. I urge all members to cosponsor H.R. 628.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE LATE NAVY LT. COMMANDER KURT BARICH
______
HON. HEATHER WILSON
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention the
service to our country of Navy Lt. Commander Kurt Barich. Lt. Commander
Barich recently died in service to our country in an aircraft accident
aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Enterprise.
Kurt Barich moved to Albuquerque, NM, with his family in 1970, going
to school at Sandia High School and the University of New Mexico before
joining the Navy. Kurt was a member of the squadron VAQ-130, the
``Zappers,'' based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA.
Lt. Commander Kurt Barich flew 39 combat missions in the Gulf War in
A-6 Intruder ground attack jets off the carrier U.S.S. Kennedy. After
the Navy retired the A-6, Kurt Barich began flying the Prowler, an
electronic warfare variant designed to jam enemy radar and destroy
radar sights. He served his country honorably and with distinction
receiving numerous medals and decorations in his 13 years in the Navy,
including four Air Medals, three Navy Commendations and four Navy
Achievement Medals.
Kurt Barich was aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise on his last mission as
it sailed for Norfolk, VA, and then on to the Middle East to protect
vital American interests. Join me today as we honor Lt. Commander Kurt
Barich for his service to our country. We will only remain a free
country as long as there are men and women ready to protect our
freedoms. Let us also send our thanks and our sympathies to his family
for their support for his service in the Navy.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DALE JACOBS
______
HON. BRAD SHERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dale Jacobs
in celebration of his dedication to community service and volunteering.
As Dale is being honored this week by the Tarzana Chamber of
Commerce, it seems an appropriate time to acknowledge his distinguished
career and extraordinary contributions to the development of our
community and our country.
Since becoming a resident of the Valley, over 20 years ago, Dale has
continually strived to make his home and community a better place to
live. He sacrifices his personal time, energy, and money so that others
may benefit. At one point he was involved with 22 local organizations
simultaneously.
His children Joel and Angela have been a tremendous inspiration to
him giving him the desire to ensure that their lives, and the lives of
other children, can be as fulfilling as possible. He is an active
member of A.Y.S.O. as a Division Manager, Treasurer, coach, and even
referee. In addition, he has also taken an active role in their
education, having served as past President of the Portola Middle School
Booster Club, Vice-President of the Wilbur Avenue Elementary School
Booster Club, President of the Reseda High School PTSA, and Treasurer
of Parents for Public Schools.
Dale has also played an active role in the business community. A
certified public accountant, Dale has been a partner with Sandler,
Powell, Jacobs & Berlin since 1988. A member of the Tarzana Chamber for
many years Dale has been serving as their President since 1997 where he
has focused on expanding membership, encouraging activism, and serving
the community. We are fortunate that he is being reinstalled as
President of the Tarzana chamber for yet another year.
When he does have free time Dale enjoys Civil War Reenacting with his
wife Bobbe, of 27 years, and the rest of his family. He is Treasurer of
the Fort Tejon Historical Association and spent last summer
participating in a reenactment of the Battle of Gettysburg at
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
Mohandas Gandhi once said that ``You find yourself by losing yourself
in service to your fellow man, your God and country.'' I cannot think
of a more fitting tribute to Dale. Thanks to his leadership, courage,
and dedication, our community is an ideal place to raise a family,
start a business, or become involved in community activities.
Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring
Dale Jacobs for all of his contributions to our community.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO VAHAN TEKEYAN AND TO THE TEKEYAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Vahan
Tekeyan on the 120th anniversary of his birth and to the Tekeyan
Cultural Association.
Vahan Tekeyan was born in Constantinople, Turkey in 1878. He gained
prominence as one of the most celebrated poets in Armenian history.
Tekeyan is credited with contributing to saving the Armenian language
through his vast writings. It is said that he gave poetry a melody all
its own. Tekeyan is recognized both as a poet of the people and as a
poet's poet. He courageously met and conquered numerous challenges
during his lifetime. Vahan Tekeyan died in Cairo, Egypt at the age of
67.
The Tekeyan Cultural Association was founded in Beirut, Lebanon in
1947 by Professor Parounag Thomasian, Kersan Aharonian and Harchia
Setrakian, Esq. The association is headquartered in Watertown, MA and
has chapters throughout the United States as well as in Armenia,
Canada, France, Egypt, Argentina, Belgium and Greece. During the
Armenian genocide of 1915-1923, the Fresno Chapter of the Tekeyan
Cultural Association significantly contributed to the welfare and
support of orphans.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I pay tribute to Vahan
Tekeyan on the 120th anniversary of his birth and to the Tekeyan
Cultural Association Fresno Chapter. Their dedication to preserving
Armenian heritage and their significant support of numerous noble
causes is to be commended. I invite my colleagues to join me in this
recognition.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FORMER MICHIGAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN L. LOWE
______
HON. BART STUPAK
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Allen
Lowe, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives
from the 105th Representative District, which includes five counties in
my congressional district.
First elected to the House in 1992, Allen Lowe has just concluded his
service in that body because of the Michigan term limits law. This law
was enacted at the will of the voters of Michigan, but I have to
confess that in this case I believe the law has turned out of office a
dedicated public servant who was deeply concerned about the welfare of
his constituents.
I know that Allen traveled extensively throughout his district,
because I pride myself on returning to my district each week to
participate in community events, and many times I found Allen attending
the same events.
Allen Lowe was a legislator with deep convictions, and although I did
not always agree with his position on issues, I have always had the
greatest respect for the way in which he presented and defended these
convictions. Like myself, Allen was a graduate of Cooley Law School.
Like myself, he was a pro-life legislator. And like myself, he was not
afraid to challenge Michigan's governor on issues that he believed
would be detrimental to his northern Michigan constituents, despite
that fact that Allen and the governor were members of the same
political party.
Allen brought to his job a broad involvement in community issues. He
has been a teacher and school administrator, and he involved himself in
activities and organizations that served his Michigan district,
including the Michigan Farm Bureau, the Camp Grayling Conservation
Club, and the Friends of Hartwick Pines.
I will miss doing parades with him, debating issues, and, as always,
working with him on issues of importance to his state representative
district.
I believe the people of the 105th Representative District were well-
served by Allen Lowe.
[[Page 3419]]
____________________
IN MEMORY OF MARY COOPER STRINGER
______
HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
remarkable lady, and constituent of mine from the Third District, Mrs.
Mary Cooper Stringer, who passed away on Friday January 15, 1999, in
Forest, Mississippi, following a short illness. The Mississippi State
Senate adjourned January 18, 1999, in her honor.
Mrs. Stringer, along with her husband Robert P. ``Bob'' Stringer,
lived in the Forest community for the past 40 years and was actively
involved in community and local affairs. She was a graduate of
Mississippi State College for Women, a member of the Eastern Star, and
worked for the Pentagon after graduating from college.
When not doting on her husband, Mrs. Stringer was cheering and
backing her favorite team, the Mississippi State Bulldogs and striving
to make her hometown the best it could be. Mrs. Stringer's first love
was her husband Bob, their two daughters, Jean and Anne and their two
sons, Robert and Johnny, along with their 13 grandchildren and one
great grandson.
Mrs. Stringer was a very astute businesswoman and a close friend of
my predecessor Congressman G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery. She was very
helpful and active in the planning of the Annual Montgomery Hunters
Stew which Bob hosted for Congressman Montgomery each January, for the
past 22 years. Mr. Stringer served on the Forest Board of Alderman for
four terms before his retirement in June 1997.
The legacy that Mrs. Stringer leaves behind will be very hard to
emulate. She was a much admired lady. I extend my sympathy to her
husband ``Bob'', and other family members while expressing my
appreciation and that of every citizen of the 3rd District for her life
of service.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO FRED STARRH
______
HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friends in Kern County who
share a mutual goal of improving educational opportunities in our
schools, as we honor one of our finest friends, Fred Starrh, a man
devoted to helping his neighbors, a man always willing to do the hard
work, a man whose pride in his country is visible to everyone he meets.
Tonight we honor one aspect of this man's accomplishments--his
achievements and commitment to thousands of Kern County high school
students during his tenure as a trustee of the Kern High School
District.
As a trustee and Past President, Fred Starrh has devoted a tremendous
amount of time and effort to preparing Kern County's children for their
future. Those who have worked with Fred know he puts his all into every
project he takes on. His service on the Board of Trustees is a
testament to his character and devotion to all the families in Kern
County who have sent their children to Kern high schools. Fred Starrh
served us all well by watching over the myriad issues that come before
those entrusted with the management of the education provided to our
kids during the critically important four years of high school study.
I know people from all over the United States who rely on Fred
Starrh's advice and counsel. Fred has friends everywhere, and years of
working together make me honored to be included among them. Few people
are as dedicated and as much fun to work with as we all know Fred
Starrh to be.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WEEK
______
HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
national and local efforts in vocational education and career
preparation training. I commend the American Vocational Association for
designating February 14-20, as Vocational Education Week. The over 14
million students and 26,000 institutions that are dedicated to
betterment through career education deserve our recognition and support
throughout the year.
Regional occupation programs in my district and throughout the
country provide students with stronger skills and increased learning
opportunities. They enhance both the education and employment prospects
of our young people and help build a strong, well-trained workforce.
Vocational education makes a proven difference in lives of students
who might not otherwise have access to targeted education and skills
training. It opens doors to opportunities for productive futures. I am
proud of the work done in my community, and I would like to recognize
the hard-working students and dedicated staff in the Inland Empire who
make vocational education a success. They are to be commended for their
role in strengthening both individual lives and our community as a
whole.
____________________
SALINAS VALLEY MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM--HELPING TO LEAD CHINA TO
BETTER HEALTH CARE
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform you and
all our House colleagues of the magnificent contributions to
international health care by the Salinas Valley Memorial Health Care
System (SVMH). Through the efforts of SVMH, two cities in China,
Kunming in the Province of Yunnan, and Chengdu in the Province of
Sichuan, will receive the best in advanced medical training services
and the best high-tech equipment to better serve the Health care needs
of the Chinese people.
SVMH has long been on the cutting edge of technology in Health care
services. Located in Salinas in my Central California Coast district,
SVMH has developed state-of-the-art heart and cardiac health services.
It works in tandem with NASA in using high-resolution equipment to
uncover the secrets of the human health system. It also has established
a long-term Health care facility for senior care that scores high marks
by the health care industry.
Because of SVMH's expertise and experience, it has reached out to the
international community to help. China, with the largest population on
earth and yet some of the most remote and underserved populations, was
a key target for assistance. Partnering with Assist International
Rotary International Marquette Medical Services, SVMH will send a team
of doctors and professional staff to Chengdu, China and Kunming, China
today. This international team of hope will--
Donate and install $1 million worth of high-tech medical equipment in
the Yunnan Red Cross Hospital in Kunming and The First Medical School,
The First University Hospital, West China University of Medical
Sciences in Chengdu;
Educate and train the medical staff of both hospitals on the latest
technologies and practices utilized by our physicians in the treatment
of heart-related illnesses and procedures;
Interact with the citizenry of the community in order to demonstrate
American willingness to share high tech medical information and
technology.
This partnership, Mr. Speaker, is important for a number of reasons.
First, it is critical to recognize that despite all other political
machinations between the U.S. and China, there is one very important
issue upon which leaders of both countries agree: that Health care is
essential to quality of life. In that regard, SVMH, the Rotary
International, Assist International and Marquette Medical Services have
served as ambassadors extraordinaire to unify our two countries.
Second, this partnership is important because through the efforts of
SVMH and others, we are establishing a firm working relationship with
our Chinese counterparts--one that will indirectly benefit the
relationship between the U.S. and China, but that will also directly
benefit the Chinese people through the delivery of more and better
Health care services. In this regard, the Yunnan Red Cross Hospital and
the West China University of Medical Sciences deserve special
recognition and praise for their commitment to improve Health care
practices and their dedication to the pursuit of new knowledge in the
field of medicine.
Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, I urge you today to stand in
honor of the Salinas Valley Memorial Health Care System and their
partners in international Health care, the Yunnan Red Cross Hospital,
the West China University of Medical Sciences, Assist International,
Rotary International and Marquette
[[Page 3420]]
Medical Services. They deserve our praise, they deserve our support and
most of all, they deserve the chance to make this partnership a success
so people can live well.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BOB LIVINGSTON, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA
______
speech of
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 23, 1999
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to a
colleague who has built a fine legacy of accomplishment as an adept and
effective legislator--and leader--of this institution in which we all
are honored to serve. Bob Livingston's leaving leaves a void that is
not easily filled, as his colleagues from Louisiana have attested
tonight. I wish Bob and Bonnie all the best as they embark on their new
life, and am certain that Bob will continue to contribute to the public
interest in the future.
Bob, you will definitely be missed here, and as you leave Congress,
you should take pride in your record of accomplishment for the State of
Louisiana and the Nation. Good luck to you.
____________________
LACKAWANNA VALLEY HERITAGE AREA ACT
______
HON. DON SHERWOOD
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Lackawanna
Valley Heritage Area Act. By designating the Lackawanna Valley of
Pennsylvania as a National Heritage Area, this important legislation
would ensure the conservation of its significant natural, historic and
cultural resources. The Lackawanna Valley was the first heritage area
designated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is a nationally
significant historic area as documented in the U.S. Department of
Interior's Register of Historic Places, Multiple Property Documentation
Submittal of the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission (1996).
For every federal dollar provided over the last decade, the
Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority--which oversees the Valley's
historical and cultural resources--has leveraged ten dollars in State,
local and private sector funds to finance preservation activities. The
Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority would continue to foster these
important relationships with all levels of government, the private
sector and local communities.
The Valley represents the development of anthracite coal, one of
North America's greatest natural resources. From early in the 19th
century, Pennsylvania's coal provided an extraordinary source of energy
which fueled America's economic growth for over a hundred years. At the
center of the world's most productive anthracite field, the Lackawanna
Valley witnessed the inception, spectacular growth and eventual
deterioration of an industry which led us to unparalleled prosperity.
The Valley's current mix of ethnicity, its combination of dense urban
areas and isolated settlements, and the desolate remains of coal mines
surrounded by beautiful countryside are a microcosm of our legacy from
the industrial revolution. As these contrasts illustrate, the
industrial era was not without human and environmental costs. Thousands
of immigrants worked in deep mines under horrible conditions. Death and
injury were commonplace, with no survivor benefits or disability
compensation to withstand these calamities. Anthracite miners created
the nation's first labor unions and they fought for the implementation
of child labor laws, workplace safety, pension security and fair labor
standards.
The new Americans who populated the Lackawanna Valley established
strong communities where ethnic ties were reinforced by churches and
fraternal societies that created a sense of security noticeably absent
in the mines. The Valley's remaining ethnic neighborhoods are a
testament to a pattern of urban growth once common in U.S. cities, but
now disappearing.
The landscape of the Valley conveys the story of the industrial
revolution most clearly. Miles of track and hundreds of industrial
sites and abandoned mines are daily reminders of the importance of the
region to industry. Heritage sites like Pennsylvania's Anthracite
Heritage Museum, the Scranton Iron Furnace Historic Site, the
Lackawanna County Coal Mine and the Steamtown National Historic Site
help to commemorate this struggle. These sites provide the framework
for historic preservation which will be cemented by my proposed
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the designation of the Lackawanna Valley as a National
Heritage Area will enable all Americans for years to come to witness
and learn the story of anthracite mining, the labor movement, and the
industrialization of our great nation. I urge my colleagues to support
the Lackawanna Valley Heritage Act.
____________________
THE SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS ACT OF 1999
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to give
permanent protection as wilderness to the heart of the Spanish Peaks
area in Colorado.
The bill is cosponsored by several of my colleagues from Colorado,
including Mr. Schaffer, whose district includes the portion of the
Spanish Peaks within Las Animas county. I am also pleased to be joined
by Mr. Hefley, Mr. Tancredo, and Mr. Mark Udall of Colorado. I greatly
appreciate their assistance and support.
Today, across the Capitol, Senator Allard is introducing an identical
companion bill. I would like to extend my appreciation to the Senator
for his active support of this worthwhile legislation.
Finally, I would offer a note of appreciation and thanks to the
former Members of Congress whose efforts made today's legislation
possible. First, approximately 20 years ago, Senator William Armstrong
of Colorado began this worthwhile process by proposing wilderness in
Colorado, and in 1986 Senator Armstrong proposed protected status and
management for the Spanish Peaks. His efforts set in place the
foundation upon which today's bill is built. Second, I would like to
thank the former Congressman from the Second District, Mr. Skaggs.
Together, he and I introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress,
which passed the House but due to time constraints did not pass the
Senate. The efforts by both of these individual legislators helped make
this bill possible.
The mountains known as the Spanish Peaks are two volcanic peaks in
Las Animas and Huerfano Counties whose Native American name is
Wayatoya. The eastern peak rises to 12,683 feet above sea level, while
the summit of the western peak reaches 13,626 feet. The two served as
landmarks not only for Native Americans but also for some of Colorado's
other early settlers and for travelers along the trail between Bent's
Old Fort on the Arkansas River and Taos, New Mexico.
With this history, it's not surprising that the Spanish Peaks portion
of the San Isabel National Forest was included in 1977 on the National
Registry of Natural Landmarks. The Spanish Peaks area has outstanding
scenic, geologic, and wilderness values, including a spectacular system
of over 250 free standing dikes and ramps of volcanic materials
radiating from the peaks. The State of Colorado has designated the
Spanish Peaks as a natural area, and they are a popular destination for
hikers seeking an opportunity to enjoy an unmatched vista of
southeastern Colorado's mountains and plains.
The Forest Service reviewed the Spanish Peaks area for possible
wilderness designation as part of its second roadless area review and
evaluation--known as RARE II--and in 1979 recommended designation as
wilderness of 19,570 acres. Concerns about private land inholdings in
the area prompted Congress, in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980, to
instead provide for its continued management as a wilderness study
area.
A decade later, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 included
provisions for long-term management of all the other wilderness study
areas in our State's national forests, but meanwhile questions about
the land-ownership pattern in the Spanish Peaks area had prompted the
Forest Service to change its mind about designating it as wilderness.
That, in turn, led to inclusion in the 1993 wilderness bill of a
requirement for its continued management of that area as a wilderness
study area for 3 years--until August 13, 1996. The 1993 bill also
required the Forest Service to report to Congress concerning the extent
of non-Federal holdings in the likelihood of acquisition of those
holdings by the United States with the owner's consent.
The required report was submitted in 1995. It indicated that within
the wilderness study area, there were about 825 acres where the United
States owned neither the surface nor the mineral rights, and about 440
acres more where the United States owned the surface but not the
minerals. Since then, through voluntary sales, the United States has
acquired
[[Page 3421]]
most of the inholdings. Today only 166 acres of inholdings remain, and
the Forest Service is in the process of or making efforts to acquire
134 of those acres. So the way is now clear for Congress to finish the
job of protecting this outstanding area by designating it as part of
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The bill I am introducing today would designate as wilderness about
18,000 acres of the San Isabel National Forest, including both of the
Spanish Peaks as well as the slopes below and between them. This
includes most of the lands originally recommended for wilderness by the
Forest Service, but with boundary revision that will exclude some
private lands. I would like to note that Senator Allard and I have made
significant efforts to address local concerns about the wilderness
designation, including: (1) adjusting the boundary slightly to exclude
certain lands that are likely to have the capacity for mineral
production; and (2) excluding from the wilderness a road that locals
use for access to the beauty of the Spanish Peaks.
The lands covered by this bill are not only striking for their beauty
and value but also for recreation. They fully merit the protection that
will come from their designation as wilderness. The bill itself is very
simple. It would just add the Spanish Peaks area to the list of areas
designated as wilderness by the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. As a
result, all the provisions of the act--including the provisions related
to water--would apply to the Spanish Peaks area just as they do to the
other areas on that list. Like all the areas now on that list, the
Spanish Peaks area covered by this bill is a headwaters area, which for
all practical purposes eliminates the possibility of water conflicts.
There are no water diversions within the area.
Mr. Speaker, enactment of this Spanish Peaks bill will not be the
last step in protecting the Federal lands in Colorado. As this bill
demonstrates, when an area is appropriate for wilderness designation
and when all the outstanding issues have been satisfactorily addressed,
the Colorado delegation will respond with appropriate legislation. I
would also note that other protection short of the absolute wilderness
designation may be appropriate in certain cases, and I would encourage
Coloradans, the counties, local users and interests who would be
impacted to consider this possibility when discussing how to best
utilize public lands within Colorado.
I will continue to work to achieve appropriate levels of protection
for the pristine and beautiful areas within Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I
close by urging the Congress to act without delay to pass this
important measure for the Spanish Peaks area of Colorado.
____________________
HONORING THE DISTINGUISHED CAREER OF JUDGE JOHN JUSTIN MALIK, JR. UPON
HIS RETIREMENT
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my
colleagues:
Judge John Justin Malik, Jr. has spent his life serving the
people. His career began in 1958 when he served as the City
Solicitor for the city of Bellaire, Ohio. He then became the
Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney and later a Belmont
County Commissioner.
As Commissioner, Judge Malik was appointed to serve on the
Ohio Jail Advisory Board and continues to serve on that Board
as Judge. He also participated in the acquisition of the land
on State Route 331 where Fox Shannon Industrial Park was
formed. This industrial park is now the site of several
agencies and businesses, including Sargus Juvenile Detention
Center, the Department of Human Services, and the new Belmont
County jail.
Judge Malik was a partner in a law firm started by his
father in the 1930's. Upon graduation from Notre Dame, Judge
Malik joined his father in this practice and practiced law
while also serving as City Solicitor for Bellaire and as
Belmont County Commissioner.
Since becoming Juvenile and Probate Judge in February 1991,
Judge Malik has continued to work for the benefit of Belmont
County. He recently has been instrumental in the donation of
land to Belmont County. This area is set to be the new
location of the Belmont County Fairgrounds. Additionally,
Judge Malik works diligently to work with juvenile
delinquents and unruly children in Belmont County.
In addition to all of these efforts, Judge Malik continues
to own and operate a garden center and gift ship and serve on
the Board of Directors for several organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the career
of Judge Malik. His lifelong service and commitment to Belmont County
is to be commended.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JESSICA MOORE
______
HON. ANNE M. NORTHUP
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor a young
Kentucky student from my district who has achieved national recognition
for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Jessica Moore of
Louisville has just been named one of my state's top honorees in the
1999 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor
conferred on the most impressive volunteers in each state, the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Ms. Moore, 17, is a senior at Sacred Heart Academy. She has raised
close to $20,000 for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (JDF) to help
find a cure for the disease which her mother has had since she was 5
years old. ``After attending the 1997 kick-off luncheon for JDF with my
mother, I was inspired to take on this major fundraising project to
help find a cure,'' Jessica said. ``As I sat at the luncheon and saw
mothers holding their infants, I began to envision what lay ahead for
their futures.'' For the past two years, Jessica has spent countless
hours raising money and an awareness of diabetes throughout her school
and local community by conducting a letter-writing campaign,
coordinating educational programs and organizing fund-raising walks.
She plans to continue her fight against diabetes until her dream of a
cure becomes a reality.
In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are
less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital
that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this
young citizen has made. Young volunteers like Ms. Moore are inspiring
examples to all of us and are among our brightest hopes for a better
tomorrow.
Ms. Moore should be extremely proud to have been singled out from
such a large group of dedicated volunteers. I heartily applaud Ms.
Moore for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better
place to live and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of
others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment
that is truly extraordinary in today's world and deserves our sincere
admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can, and
do, play important roles in our communities and that America's
community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.
____________________
CHRISTIANS ATTACKED IN INDIA
______
HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, James Madison, the primary author of the
U.S. Constitution, warned about ``the tyranny of the majority.'' The
modern state of India is an example of what Madison warned us about.
Between Christmas and New Year, several Christian churches, prayer
halls, and missionary schools were attacked by extremist Hindu mobs
affiliated with the parent organization of India's ruling Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP).
The Washington Post reported on January 1 that ten such attacks
occurred the week between Christmas and New Year's Day. Six people were
injured in one of these attacks. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), or
World Hindu Council, appears to be responsible for the attacks. The BJP
is the political wing of the VHP.
The Hindu militants are apparently upset that Christians are
converting low-caste Hindus. Their frustration does not justify acts of
violence.
Christian activists report that there were more than 60 recorded
cases of church and Bible-burning, rape, and other attacks in 1998
alone, including the recent rape of four nuns. The VHP called the
rapists ``patriotic youth.''
In 1997 and 1998, four priests were murdered. In the fall of 1997, a
Christian festival was stopped when the police opened fire. Clearly,
there is a pattern here. However, Christians are not the only victims
of India's tyrannical ``democracy.''
Muslims have seen their most revered mosques destroyed; Sikhs have
seen their most sacred shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, attacked
and remain under occupation by plainclothes police. Their spiritual
leader, the Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Gurdev Singh Kaunke, was
tortured and killed in police custody. Although there is a witness to
this murder, no action has been taken against those responsible. Is
this the secular democracy that India is so proud of?
[[Page 3422]]
The United States is the beacon of freedom to the world. As such, we
cannot sit idly by and watch India trample on the religious freedom of
its minorities. We should put this Congress on record in support of
peaceful, democratic freedom movements in South Asia and throughout the
world.
The United States recently allowed Puerto Rico to vote on its status;
our Canadian neighbors held a similar referendum in Quebec. When do the
Sikhs of Khalistan, the Muslims of Kashmir, and the other peoples
living under Indian rule get their chance to exercise this basic
democratic right? Will we support democratic freedom for the people of
South Asia, or will we look away while the tyranny of the majority
continues to suppress fundamental rights like freedom of religion?
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY DOLLAR BILL ACT
______
HON. TOM BLILEY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege of attending
Patrick Henry High School in Ashland, Virginia and participating in
their presentation of the Liberty Dollar Bill Act. This is the finest
presentation I have ever witnessed by a group of high school and middle
school students.
The Liberty Dollar Bill Act would redesign the one dollar note and
place an abbreviated version of the Constitution on its reverse side.
It is a real tragedy that an overwhelming majority of Americans cannot
name the liberties granted them in the Constitution. The Liberty Dollar
Bill is important because it would teach Americans the framework of
American Government and the liberties of freedom found in the
Constitution. It would spread the ideals of representative democracy
around the world and allow U.S. soldiers stationed abroad to read,
show, and teach the ideal for which they are willing to give their
lives. The Liberty Dollar Bill would ensure that we leave our
government in good condition for our posterity and honor the
Constitution as an American symbol.
Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I reintroduce the Liberty
Dollar Bill Act today on behalf of the students at Patrick Henry High
School, Liberty Middle School, their teacher Randy Wright, and forty
Members of Congress.
____________________
MT. RAINIER NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
______
HON. JENNIFER DUNN
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I come before the House of
Representatives to wish a happy 100th birthday to Mt. Rainier National
Park in the 8th Congressional District in the state of Washington. Like
many others from Washington, I am tempted to say ``my mountain''
because that's how we all feel about Mt. Rainier--it belongs to each of
us. It also gives the 8th district distinction as the most beautiful
district in the nation.
Mt. Rainier National Park was established March 2, 1899 as our fifth
national park. The park itself encompasses 378 square miles. At its
highest point, the mountain is 14,411 feet, so it's not surprising that
more than 2 million people visit the park each year to enjoy its moist
rainforest, giant old growth forests, subalpine meadows, and glaciers.
But Rainier is more than just a national park. It is an integral part
of the network of communities that surround its boundaries and form a
gateway that visitors pass through when visiting the area. These
communities support the park and the park supports them.
It would be hard to imagine many people in Washington who can't go
through their personal or family photo albums and find pictures of
themselves with friends or family during a visit to the mountain. And
every one of those photos tells a story. It is so with my family. Our
family and friends all grew up in the shadow of ``our'' mountain
spending time in a cabin near Greenwater and venturing into the park
many times during every season.
It was always amazing to me that for all the trails we hiked, streams
we crossed, picnics we enjoyed, glaciers we climbed, it was new and
different every time. We never tired of ``our'' mountain. I can't
imagine I ever will. As a Member of Congress, I have been given the
opportunity to see the park and mountain from a different vantage
point. Rather than just a visitor, I am now an active partner in
helping to maintain the park and protect it for future generations.
The theme of the centennial celebration is ``A Century of Resource
Stewardship.'' To underscore this theme, the park has undertaken a
series of signature projects. These include the Sunrise Ecological
Restoration Project, rehabilitation of the White River Patrol Cabin,
and completion of the last mile of the Wonderland Trail.
In February, Northwest Airlines began airing a special video about
the Mt. Rainier Centennial that airs on international flights landing
at Sea Tac Airport. Today, the celebration begins with a birthday cake
and a ceremony to announce a collectible cancelled stamp at Longmire in
the park. I am honored to participate in this ceremony kicking off the
official celebration.
Throughout this year the centennial committee has planned exciting
projects and activities to celebrate the park's 100th birthday. For
instance, the Tacoma/Pierce County Visitor and Convention Bureau and
the gateway communities have joined together to host several special
weekends of festivals and activities, and renowned mountain climber,
Lou Whittaker, is leading a special ``Centennial Climb'' to the summit
of Mt. Rainier. Lou's climbing group will include international
mountain climbers as well as celebrities who have climbed with Lou in
the past.
My colleagues, if you haven't made vacation plans or visited Mt.
Rainier National Park before, this is surely the time to come to
Washington and join us in our celebration. And, perhaps on your way up
to the park or while you're enjoying a latte somewhere in Seattle, you
will have that special experience that separates us in Washington from
the rest of the world. You or someone you're with may look South to the
horizon and say, ``Look! The mountain is out today!''
____________________
IRA EXPANSION NEEDED
______
HON. JIM SAXTON
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the current tax system has many problems,
but one of its main defects is its bias against personal saving.
Personal saving is taxed once out of income, and then the return to
saving is taxed once again. This multiple taxation penalizes personal
saving, a major source of economic growth. So it is no surprise that
America has one of the lowest personal savings rates in the world.
This bias can be addressed by increasing the tax deduction for IRA
contributions, currently set at $2,000 annually. Today I am introducing
legislation to boost IRA deduction limits $500 per year over several
years. When fully phased in, a middle class family could deduct up to
$7,000 for an annual IRA contribution. I strongly urge that an increase
in IRA deductions be a part of any tax relief plan offered in this
Congress.
An increase in IRA deductions would help middle class families save
for the future, become more financially independent, and become better
able to deal with unexpected events. Expanded IRAs would also give
middle class families a greater stake in the U.S. economic system. It
is a tax incentive that average Americans would understand and strongly
support.
An increase in IRA deductions would increase personal saving, a major
source of investment and economic growth. This would help firms to
supply their workers with the best and most advanced tools, thus
increasing their productivity and income. The current treatment of
saving in our tax code is literally counterproductive. This is
hampering our economy over the long term and reducing the American
standard of living relative to what it would otherwise be.
Many in Washington bemoan the low savings rate, but if we want
personal saving to increase, we should increase IRA deductions for
middle class taxpayers. A tax code that penalizes saving and investment
makes no sense. Middle class taxpayers need a means of addressing their
responsibilities to save for retirement, higher education, medical
expenses and long term care, and unemployment. My legislation provides
for penalty-free withdrawals for these purposes. Federal tax policy
should not discriminate against taxpayers willing and able to take on
these responsibilities but are prevented from doing so by the
destructive impact of the current tax system. Let's limit the tax
discrimination against personal saving.
[[Page 3423]]
____________________
LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS COMMERCIAL AND SUBSISTENCE FISHING TO CONTINUE
IN GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation,
along with identical legislation being introduced in the Senate by
Senators Murkowski and Stevens, to allow commercial and subsistence
fishing to continue in Glacier Bay National Park.
In 1978, the National Park Service made a determination that
commercial fishing activities were incompatible with National Park
Service resources and would be permitted only when specifically
authorized by law. Because of this broad determination, the National
Park Service developed a rule outlawing commercial and subsistence
fishing within the waters of Glacier Bay National Park in 1997.
This broad determination by the National Park Service ignores the
fact that commercial fishing has taken place in the waters of Glacier
Bay even before the National Park Service took control of the Bay in
1925. Alaskan Natives have fished in this Bay since the 1700's. Non-
Native commercial fishing began in the 1880's. In addition, under the
Glacier Bay National Park General Management Plan, put into place in
1984, commercial fishing was allowed. Why has the Park Service suddenly
now determined that there is some threat to Park resources?
Both the salmon and crab fisheries found off the coast of Alaska and
in Glacier Bay National Park, even in Federal waters, are managed by
the State of Alaska not the Federal government. There is no resource
problem in these fisheries or within the boundaries of the Park. The
halibut resource in this area is managed through an international
treaty and scientists with both the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council and the International Halibut Commission have found that there
is no problem with the halibut resource in this area. In 1990, the
Alaska Wildlife Alliance sued the National Park Service claiming that
commercial fishing was statutorily prohibited within the Park. In March
1997, the Federal appeals court (U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
ruled that commercial fishing was not statutorily prohibited in the
Park, except for in wilderness areas. If there is no resource problem
within the Glacier Bay National Park boundaries, then commercial and
subsistence fishing activities should not be prohibited by broad
National Park Service policies drafted in Washington, D.C.
The determination banning commercial and subsistence fishing within
Glacier Bay National Park made no sense and was a political decision
that will take away the livelihood of a large number of fishermen and
will affect the well being of a number of communities which rely on the
fishing industry. A ban on commercial fishing will affect not only
fishermen, but will also have a huge effect on processing companies
including a Native owned and operated processing plant in Kake, which
buys much of its seafood from vessels which fish in Glacier Bay. A ban
on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay will affect 416 crew and permit
holders from Gustavus, Elfin Cove, Hoonah, and Pelican and affect
employment opportunities for 613 employed in the seafood industry in
these four towns alone. This ban will have a huge economic effect on
this region. All of the fishing operations in the Park boundaries are
small businesses--there are no large fishing vessels fishing in the
Park and no factory trawlers fish here.
Last year, a group of stakeholders including commercial fishing
industry representatives, Alaskan Natives, local processing companies,
local and national environmental representatives, the State of Alaska,
and Park Service personnel met to work out details of an agreement
which would allow commercial fishing to continue. The stakeholders had
not come to a resolution and because there was no resolution, language
was put in the Interior Appropriations legislation to prevent the
National Park Service from publishing final rules until the stakeholder
group could reach an agreement; however, the National Park Service and
national environmental groups made this a national environmental
priority and prevented the stakeholder process from concluding.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will reverse this unjust and
unscientific National Park Service policy and allow commercial and
subsistence fishing to continue in the non-wilderness waters of Glacier
Bay National Park. It clarifies that the State of Alaska will continue
to manage marine fishery resources within the Park's boundaries. It
will also provide compensation to those who have been displaced by any
closures within the Park or by actions of any Federal agency which
interferes with any person legally fishing in Park waters.
Even with commercial fisheries operating in the Park, Glacier Bay
National Park was the number one destination in the National Park
Service system last year. Commercial fishing poses no threat to the
``park experience'' and in fact many visitors consider seeing fishing
vessels as a positive experience in the Park.
Mr. Speaker, there is no fishery resource problem in the Park and
there is no justification for a complete closure of Glacier Bay
National Park to commercial or subsistence fishing. This legislation
will right a wrong and continue to allow these practices to continue in
Glacier Bay National Park in a well managed and sustainable manner.
____________________
PRITCHETT HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM HONORED
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pritchett High
School girls basketball team on their Class A District 3 Championship.
The Pritchett players, led by Coach Tom Gooden, will now advance to
the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Pritchett High
School girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 3 Championship.
____________________
12TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOLS HONORED BY U.S. NEWS AND WORLD
REPORT
______
HON. SANDER M. LEVIN
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor five high schools within my
Congressional district that have been identified as Outstanding High
Schools by U.S. News and World Report . . . De La Salle Collegiate in
Warren, Henry Ford II in Sterling Heights, Immaculate Conception
Ukrainian Catholic in Warren, Troy High School and Troy Athens High
School in Troy.
U.S. News & World Report, in conjunction with the National Opinion
Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, reviewed 1,053
high schools in six major metropolitan areas and singled out examples
that can serve as models of excellence for communities across the
nation. Ninety six schools were cited as examples of outstanding
institutions where students progress steadily toward high academic
standards and where every student matters.
The five schools that were honored shared several key traits
including high academic standards, a core curriculum, highly qualified
teachers, strong mentoring for new teachers, partnerships between
parents and schools, administrators and teachers who know each child
and high attendance rates.
Each school also demonstrated high academic achievement as defined by
the NORC. The NORC's ``value-added approach'' measured each school's
performance only after taking its students' family circumstances into
account, thus identifying schools that do an outstanding job with the
students they have, regardless of their socio-economic background.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these five
schools, De La Salle Collegiate, Henry Ford II, Immaculate Conception
Ukrainian Catholic, Troy High School and Troy Athens High School and to
congratulate their administrators, faculty, students and parents for
their dedication and hard work. I wish them continued success as they
continue to take care of our nation's greatest asset, our young people.
[[Page 3424]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO HARRY ORR
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I inform my
colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives of the passing of my
dear friend, Harry Orr. As I have mentioned in the past, Harry Orr was
a dedicated and tireless volunteer of the Democratic Party, a committed
union activist of United Auto Workers Local 651, and a proud member of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4087 in Davison, Michigan. Due to his
unceasing efforts in all three of these forums, our community is a much
better place in which to live. He touched many people with his
dedication, his humor, and his tenderness.
Mr. Speaker, my feelings, and the feelings of many people who knew
Harry, are perhaps best summarized in the letter I have sent his loving
wife, Maxine. Due to the press of legislative business, I am unable to
attend Harry's funeral, but my letter will be read at the service.
Dear Maxine: I would like to express my sincerest sympathy
to you and your family. I am so very sorry that I am not able
to join you today, but extremely important legislative
business involving my own committee requires that I be in
Washington, D.C.
I wanted to express my thoughts about a loyal friend, a
tireless volunteer, and a great man who has been taken from
this Earth. It has been said that ``death ends a life, not a
relationship,'' and this is certainly the case for those who
have ever come in contact with Harry. Harry's desire was to
help people in any way possible and do whatever he could to
ensure that a positive environment existed throughout the
community. Harry's ability to make a difference was a trait
that you share, Maxine. Harry was not just a constituent or a
campaign volunteer, but my very good friend. It is with a
heavy heart that I write this letter today, however, it is
also with great pride that I do so. We are all inspired by
people like Harry, who make it their life's work to improve
the quality and dignity of life for all. I will miss Harry a
great deal.
Maxine, your love for Harry was so tender and caring, and
it was an inspiration to us all. You enriched his life and
kept him with us for many years he might never have had were
it not for your loving care.
Maxine, please know that I am with you today in spirit and
prayer.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Kildee, M.C.
Mr. Speaker, I and our community will sorely miss my dear friend,
Harry Orr. But his spirit lives on through his loving wife, Maxine, and
his son, Harry, Jr. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.
____________________
EAST ASIA AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS
______
HON. DOUG BEREUTER
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, during this Member visit to several East
Asian countries in January, considerable Japanese interest in
developing a missile defense system was mentioned in the region's news
media as a result of the North Korean missile launch over Japanese
territory on its course to the Pacific. Also noted was very substantial
public discussion and media coverage of the possibility of a missile
defense system in Taiwan because of the Chinese missile firings in the
run-up to the last Taiwanese presidential elections and because of the
Chinese mainland missile build-up in the Taiwan Strait region.
The following editorial from the February 20, 1999, edition of The
Economist magazine notes not only the impact on Japan of the North
Korean's provocative action and demonstrated advancement of their
missile development program, it also suggests that ``[w]ith its
missile, North Korea was thumbing its nose as much at China as at Japan
and America.'' This Member has long felt that China's influence on
North Korean is generally over-estimated, but certainly it has more
influence on the isolated, paranoid North Korean regime than any other
country. The Economist editorial notes what is almost certainly true,
that ``North Korea felt it could take such missile liberties in part
because China has stoutly opposed all international pressure on North
Korea to curb its nuclear and missile activities.'' China is
complaining loudly and threateningly against the possible deployment of
missile defense systems in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan rather than
examining its own culpability in increasing its missile threat against
Taiwan and ignoring, to its own danger, the destabilizing missile and
nuclear development programs of North Korea. The United States,
threatened itself by the North Korean missiles under development,
cannot ignore their threat to our allies, the Republic of Korea and
Japan, nor its commitment that Taiwan not be forcibly placed under the
control of Beijing. As The Economist concludes, China ``has mostly
itself to blame'' for any new tilt in East Asia's unease balance of
power may have been caused by more Potent missile forces and the
resultant urgent interest in American assistance for missile defense
systems.
This Member urges his colleagues to read the entire Economist
editorial on this important set of related developments.
[From the Economist, Feb. 20, 1999]
Causing Offence
Talk about missile defences is a symptom of East Asia's tensions, not
the cause
Are America and China heading for another bust-up? The
``strategic dialogue'' inaugurated by Presidents Bill Clinton
and Jiang Zemin has been shrilly interrupted, this time by
Chinese concern about America's discussions with Japan and
others of possible missile defences in East Asia, and by
American worries about Chinese missiles pointed at Taiwan
(see page 37). The row threatens to sour preparations for the
visit to America in April of China's prime minister, Zhu
Rongji. Handled sensibly, the missile tiff need not produce a
crisis. Yet it goes to the heart of what divides China from
America and most of its Asian neighbours: China's pursuit of
power by at times reckless means.
China may never be a global power to rival America. It is,
however, an increasingly potent regional power, with
territorial scores to settle. It makes plain that it intends
to recover sovereignty over Taiwan, to extend jurisdiction
over almost all the rocks and reefs of the South China Sea,
and ultimately to displace America as East Asia's most
influential power.
Until recently, events had seemed to be moving China's way.
Recognising China's extreme sensitivity on the Taiwan issue,
on a visit to China last year Mr. Clinton made clear that
America did not support independence for the island, despite
the protective arm America throws round it at times of
military tension with the mainland. Meanwhile China had
skilfully used the region's economic turmoil to reinforce its
claims in the South China Sea, blame rival Japan for not
doing enough to aid regional economic recovery and play on
sharp economic differences between America and Japan. Hence
China's fury that the question of missiles and missile
defences could blow a hole in these stratagems.
The launch of a North Korean rocket over Japan last August
reminded the Japanese of the importance of their alliance
with America, and persuaded the government to set aside
China's objections and start discussions on missile defences.
Without such defences in a dangerous neighbourhood, America
had worried and China had calculated that pressure would
eventually grow in Congress to pull back the 100,000 or so
American troops in Japan and South Korea. China's reaction
has been all the shriller for knowing that any missile
defences eventually deployed to protect America's troops and
close allies from rogue North Korean missiles could be used
to help protect Taiwan from China.
With its missile, North Korea was thumbing its nose as much
at China as at Japan and America. Yet the success of its
engineers owes at least something to past Chinese collusion.
North Korea felt it could take such missile liberties in part
because China has stoutly opposed all international pressure
on North Korea to curb its nuclear and missile activities.
The Taiwanese had their reminder of the potential value of
missile defences three years ago, when it was China lobbing
missiles, these ones falling near the island's shipping lanes
in a crude effort to intimidate voters before Taiwan's first
democratic presidential election. China now has snazzier
missiles. Its belligerence drove Taiwan to seek better
defences, not, as China would have it, the other way around.
There is still time to calm tensions over Taiwan, and still
time for the regional powers to talk over the problems raised
by any future (limited) missile defences. Yet these issues
give a new tilt to East Asia's uneasy balance of power. If
this tilt upsets China, it has mostly itself to blame.
____________________
INDIA-UNITED STATES MULTILATERAL TALKS
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate
United States Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot and Indian
Minister of External Affairs Jaswant Singh for their efforts in the
most recent phase of bi-lateral talks between India and the United
States. Though the full details of the talks remain undisclosed, as
they should, all reports
[[Page 3425]]
are that much progress is being made in strengthening relations of the
two countries.
I fully acknowledge and support the United States' foreign policy
principle of opposing nuclear proliferation, but I would also like to
take this opportunity to recognize that exceptions to that principle
may occasionally be warranted Such exceptions should be based on the
security needs of a nation, the entirety of that nation's
relationship--economic, cultural, and diplomatic--with the United
States, and the nation's willingness to participate in international
arms control efforts.
Based on such criteria, I assert that India is a good candidate for
such an exception to United States non-proliferation policy and would
like to voice my hope that Mr. Talbot is working hard to lift remaining
multilateral sanctions against India, especially the remaining World
Bank lending sanctions. Again, I would like to express my thanks to Mr.
Talbot and Mr. Singh for their hard work in this vital arena,
congratulate them on their success thus far, and wish them the best in
the future negotiations.
____________________
SUPPORT FOR THE DISASTER MITIGATION COORDINATION ACT
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am joining with Chairman Talent,
Ranking Member Velazquez and the Small Business Committee in support of
the Disaster Mitigation Coordination Act. This legislation is a
sensible, smart addition to the disaster loan program.
The Disaster Mitigation Coordination Act will add a valuable pro-
active measure to the Small Business Association's Disaster Loan
program. If enacted, this legislation will save money for taxpayers,
communities and small businesses.
By adding the availability of pre-disaster mitigation loans to small
businesses located in FEMA's ``Project Impact'' zones, we will be
allowing small businesses to avoid or at least reduce the damages they
suffer from unpredictable natural disasters. By helping these
businesses to prepare for and react to disasters better, we are also
ensuring they are able to continue providing needed goods and services
to the communities that depend on them.
Given the unpredictability of their frequency and the severity of
natural disasters, this approach seems more than reasonable. A 5 year
pilot program authorizing up to $15 million a year in mitigation loans
will permit the Small Business Administration to evaluate this approach
to see if it is a less costly way of mitigating disasters than other
fully subsidized federal disaster relief.
This legislation makes sense. By making available low interest, long
term pre-disaster mitigation loans that will be paid back to the
treasury, we will be reducing the amount of emergency grants necessary
to respond to disasters. Furthermore, by offering pre-disaster
assistance, we will be supporting the efforts of small businesses that
want to act responsibly and pro-actively. Pre-disaster assistance means
saving taxpayer money, secure small business communities and a healthy
economy.
Mr. Speaker, this will surely be a welcome alternative to small
businesses in our state of Illinois which has received the fifth
highest amount of disaster loan money nation wide since 1989. I thank
my colleagues for their consideration and urge them to support this
valuable piece of legislation.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO CHARLES C. BUTT, 1999 BORDER TEXAN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today to
recognize an accomplished individual who is the deserving recipient of
this year's Border Texan of the Year Award, Mr. Charles C. Butt,
Chairman & CEO of the H.E.B. Grocery Company.
This award is given to individuals whose efforts have improved the
quality of life for residents in South Texas. Recipients of this award
serve as role models for all Texans. They are an inspiration to others,
and they exhibit character as well as display a high standard of
ethics.
Charles Butt has been selected by the BorderFest Border Texan of the
Year Committee because his contributions to South Texas in the area of
employment and economic development are unsurpassed. HEB today stands
as one of the nation's largest independently owned food retailing
companies. It is the largest private employer in the state of Texas
with 45,000 employees, or ``partners,'' and operates 250 stores across
Texas, Louisiana, and Mexico. HEB generated sales of approximately $7
billion in 1998. In 1971, Mr. Butt became HEB's Chairman and CEO. At
that time 4,500 individuals were employed, and revenues were
approximately $250 million.
These facts and figures merit mention because they reflect the
strengths of someone who is a true leader, someone whose vision and
work ethic has made a successful company even more dynamic.
Moreover, HEB has always had a practice of reaching out to the
community. Never just a policy, but always a tradition, the practice of
helping those in need has only become stronger under the leadership of
Charles Butt. Time and time again, he has been there to help
communities in need. When flood-waters ravaged the small city of Del
Rio, Texas in August, HEB was there. Within hours of this tragedy, HEB
tankers carrying 5,500 gallons of water were stationed at the Del Rio
stores around the clock, and construction experts with the company were
on site helping this city to rebuild. Charles Butt personally was on
the scene to assist in whatever way he could.
The spirit of HEB can be seen not only in times of crises, but in
everyday programs that reflect the company's desire to feed the hungry.
HEB has revolutionized the food banking efforts with its support of
twenty food banks--eighteen in Texas and two in Mexico. Since 1983 HEB
supported food banks have shared more than 150 million pounds of
donated food and merchandise with some 6,000 organizations. The list of
charitable works goes on and on.
Again, I want to say how delighted I am that Charles C. Butt has been
selected to receive this recognition. He is a man who represents the
best in our country--a personal devotion to service, a professional
commitment to excellence, and a visionary grasp of the opportunities
open to all Americans.
Thank you for all your contributions, and I am glad to have this
opportunity to add my accolades to this well-deserved honor.
Congratulations, Mr. Border Texan!
____________________
THE GIFT OF LIFE CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL ACT OF 1999
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are proud to introduce
the ``Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act of 1999.'' This legislation
creates a commemorative medal to honor organ donors and their
survivors.
There is a serious shortage of available and suitable organ donors.
Over 50,000 people are currently waiting for an organ transplant.
Because of low donor rates, over 4,000 people die each year for lack of
a suitable organ. Some patients also wait significantly longer for a
transplant depending on where they live. In some parts of the country,
the typical wait for an organ transplant is close to 100 days. In other
parts of the country, the wait is closer to 1,000 days. We need to use
every possible option to increase the number of donated organs for all
Americans. The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act draws attention to
this life-saving issue, and sends a clear message that donating one's
organs is a self-less act that should receive the profound respect of
the Nation.
The legislation allows the Health and Human Service's Organ
Procurement Organization (OPO) and the Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network to establish a nonprofit fund to design,
produce, and distribute the medals. Funding would come solely from
charitable donations. The donor or family member would have the option
of receiving the Congressional Gift of Life Medal. Families would also
request that a Member of Congress, state or local official, or
community leader award the medal to the donor or donor's survivors.
According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), an average
of 5300 donations per year were made between 1994 and 1996. Research
points to a clear need for incentive programs and public education on
organ donation. These efforts can increase the number of organ
donations by more than 80 percent.
Physicians can now transplant kidneys, lungs, pancreas, liver, and
heart with considerable success. The demand for organs will continue to
grow with the improvement of medical
[[Page 3426]]
technologies. Without expanded efforts to increase the supply of organ
donation, the supply of suitable organs will continue to lag behind the
need.
This is a non-controversial, non-partisan legislation to increase
organ donation. I ask that our colleagues help bring an end to
transplant waiting lists and recognize the enormous faith and courage
displayed by organ donors and their families.
A copy of the legislaiton follows.
H.R. --
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Gift of Life Congressional
Medal Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall design and strike a
bronze medal with suitable emblems, devises, and
inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, to commemorate organ donors and their families.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any organ donor, or the family of any
organ donor, shall be eligible for a medal described in
section 2.
(b) Documentation.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall direct the entity holding the Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Network (hereafter in this
Act referred to as ``OPTN'') to contract to--
(1) establish an application procedure requiring the
relevant organ procurement organization, as described in
section 371(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
273(b)(1)), through which an individual or their family made
an organ donation, to submit to the OPTN contractor
documentation supporting the eligibility of that individual
or their family to receive a medal described in section 2;
and
(2) determine, through the documentation provided, and, if
necessary, independent investigation, whether the individual
or family is eligible to receive a medal described in section
2.
SEC. 4. PRESENTATION.
(a) Delivery to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver medals
struck pursuant to this Act to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
(b) Delivery to Eligible Recipients.--The Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall direct the OPTN contractor to
arrange for the presentation to the relevant organ
procurement organization all medals struck pursuant to this
Act to individuals or families that, in accordance with
section 3, the OPTN contractor has determined to be eligible
to receive medals under this Act.
(c) Limitation.--
(1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), only
1 medal may be presented to a family under subsection (b),
Such medal shall be presented to the donating family member,
or in the case of a deceased donor, the family member who
signed the consent form authorizing, or who otherwise
authorized, the donation of the organ involved.
(2) Exception.--In the case of a family in which more than
1 member is an organ donor, the OPTN contractor may present
an additional medal to each such organ donor or their family.
SEC. 5. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
or the OPTN contractor may provide duplicates of the medal
described in section 2 to any recipient of a medal under
section 4(b), under such regulations as the Secretary of
Health and Human Services may issue.
(b) Limitation.--The price of a duplicate medal shall be
sufficient to cover the cost of such duplicates.
SEC. 6. NATIONAL MEDALS.
The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals
for purposes of section 5111 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 7. GENERAL WAIVER OR PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.
No provision of law governing procurement or public
contracts shall be applicable to the procurement of goods or
services necessary for carrying out the provisions of this
Act.
SEC. 8. SOLICITATION OF DONATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury may enter
into an agreement with the OPTN contractor to collect funds
to offset expenditures relating to the issuance of medals
authorized under this Act.
(b) Payment of Funds.--
(1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), all
funds received by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network under subsection (a) shall be promptly paid by the
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to the
Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Limitation.--Not more than 5 percent of the any funds
received under subsection (a) shall be used to pay
administrative costs incurred by the OPTN contractor as a
result of an agreement establish under this section.
(c) Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law--
(1) all amounts received by the Secretary of the Treasury
under subsection (b)(1) shall be deposited in the Numismatic
Public Enterprise Fund, as described in section 5134 of title
31, United States Code; and
(2) the Secretary of the Treasury shall charge such fund
with all expenditures relating to the issuance of medals
authorized under this Act.
(d) Start-Up Costs.--A 1-time amount notto exceed $55,000
shall be provided to the OPTN contractor to cover initial
start-up costs. The amount will be paid back in full within 3
years of the date of the enactment of this Act from funds
received under subsection (a).
(e) No Net Cost to the Government.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall take all actions necessary to ensure that the
issuance of medals authorized under section 2 results in no
net cost to the Government.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``organ'' means the human kidney, liver,
heart, lung, pancreas, and any other human organ (other than
corneas and eyes) specified by regulation of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services or the OPTN contractor; and
(2) the term ``Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network'' means the Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network established under section 372 of the Pubic Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274).
SEC. 10. SUNSET PROVISION.
This Act shall be effective during the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
____________________
THE SPRAWLING OF AMERICA
______
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, people from across the nation are
talking about ways they can make their communities more livable.
Improving livability means better schools, safer neighborhoods,
affordable housing and more choices in transportation. Improving
livability also means preserving what makes each community unique, be
it the farmlands in Oregon or the desert in Arizona. It is my pleasure
to share with my colleagues the comments of Richard Moe, the president
of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, on this important and
timely topic.
The Sprawling of America: Federal Policy Is Part of the Problem; Can It
Be Part of the Solution?
(An address by Richard Moe, president, National Trust for Historic
Preservation at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on January
22, 1999)
America today is engaged in a great national debate. It's a
debate about sprawl. The central question in the debate is
this: Will we continue to allow haphazard growth to consume
more countryside in ways that drain the vitality out of our
cities while eroding the quality of life virtually
everywhere? Or will we choose instead to use our land more
sensibly and to revitalize our older neighborhoods and
downtowns, thereby enhancing the quality of life for
everyone?
The debate touches every aspect of our lives--the quality
of the natural and built environments, how we feel about the
places where we live and work and play, how much time we have
for our family and civil life, how rooted we are in our
communities. I believe that this debate will frame one of the
most important political issues of the first decade of the
21st century. Ultimately, its outcome will determine whether
the American dream will become a reality for future
generations.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which I am
privileged to serve, works to revitalize America's
communities by preserving our heritage--the buildings,
neighborhoods, downtowns and landscapes that link us with our
past and define us as Americans. Our mission is summed up in
a short phrase: ``Protecting the Irreplaceable.'' Sprawl
destroys the irreplaceable, which is why the National Trust
is concerned about sprawl--and why I want to address the
subject today.
Preservation is in the business of saving special places
and the quality of life they support, and sprawl destroys
both. It devours historic landscapes. It makes the strip
malls and subdivisions on the edge of Washington look like
those on the edge of Albuquerque or Birmingham or any other
American city. It drains the life out of older communities,
stops their economic pulse and often puts them in intensive
care--or sometimes even the morgue.
Sprawl reminds me of Justice Stewart's remark about
pornography: It's hard to define, but you know it when you
see it. In simple terms, sprawl is the poorly planned, low-
density, auto-oriented development that spreads out from the
edges of communities. But it is best defined by the way it
affects us in our daily lives.
[[Page 3427]]
Winston Churchill said, ``We shape our buildings, and then
our buildings shape us.'' The same holds true for
communities: The way we shape them has a huge impact on the
way we feel, the way we interact with one another, the way we
live. By harming our communities, sprawl touches us all--and
one way or another, we all pay for it.
We pay in open space and farmland lost. Since 1950, the
State of Pennsylvania has lost more than 4 million acres of
farmland; that's an area larger than Connecticut and Rhode
Island combined. Metropolitan Phoenix now covers an area the
size of Delaware. It's estimated that over the next 45 years,
sprawl in the Central Valley of California will affect more
than 3.6 million acres of America's most productive farmland.
We pay in time lost. A study last year reported that each
of us here in Washington spends about 59 hours a year--the
equivalent of a week and a half of work--stuck in traffic.
The price tag for time and fuel wasted is roughly $860
annually for every man, woman and child in the Washington
area. In Los Angeles, the average speed on the freeway is
expected to drop to 11 miles per hour by 2010. A new term
``road rage'' has been coined to describe drivers'
frustration over traffic.
We pay in higher taxes. Over the decades, we've handed over
our tax dollars to pay for infrastructure and services--
things like police and fire protection, water and sewer
lines, schools and streetlights--in our communities. Now
we're being asked to pay higher taxes to duplicate those
services in sprawling new developments, while the
infrastructure we've already paid for lies abandoned or
underused in our older city center and suburbs. Even worse,
local governments use our tax dollars to offer incentives and
write-offs to sprawl developers--in effect, rewarding them
for consuming our landscape and weakening our older
communities.
Finally, we pay in the steady erosion of our quality of
life. Inner cities have become enclaves of poverty. Long,
frustrating commutes leave us less time with our families.
Tranquil neighborhoods are destroyed by road-widening.
Historic landmarks get demolished and carted off to the
landfill. Everyplace winds up looking more and more like
Noplace. These signs point to an inescapable fact: Sprawl and
its byproducts represent the number-one threat to community
livability in America today. And in a competitive global
marketplace, livability is the factor that will determine
which communities thrive and which ones wither. Nobel Prize-
winning economist Robert Solow puts it this way: ``Livability
is not some middle-class luxury. It is an economic
imperative.''
Sprawl is finally getting the attention it deserves. It was
the subject of major initiatives announced by the President
and the Vice President in recent back-to-back speeches.
Bipartisan caucuses focusing on smart growth and community
livability have been formed in both the House and Senate.
Governors across the political spectrum have announced
programs to control sprawl and encourage smart growth. The
Urban Land Institute, the American Institute of Architects,
the National Governors Association, and foundations and
nonprofit organizations of every stripe hold seminars and
workshops on sprawl. Last November, voters from Cape Cod to
California overwhelmingly approved some 200 ballot
initiatives related to growth management and urban
revitalization.
All this attention is welcome. Sprawl is a national
problem, and it needs a national debate. But the debate
shouldn't focus on finding a national solution, because there
isn't one. There are two essential elements in any effective
program to combat sprawl: sensible land-use planning and the
revitalization of existing communities. These are issues
traditionally and best handled at the state and local
levels--and that, in the end, is where the fight against
sprawl will be won or lost. But--and here's the main point I
want to make today--the federal government also has a crucial
role to play in the process.
There are obviously many factors such as crime, drugs and
bad schools and public services that have helped propel the
exodus of people and jobs from our central cities, but that
exodus has been greatly facilitated--even accelerated--by the
effects of federal policies. Sometimes these effects have
been intended and sometimes they have been inadvertent, but
in most cases they have been profound. Because the federal
government has contributed so heavily to the problem, it has
a clear duty to help find solutions.
It can--and should--do so in four ways:
First, it should correct policies that encourage or reward
sprawl.
Sprawl-friendly policies and practices exist in almost
every federal agency. I'll mention only a few examples.
Nearly 17 million people work directly or indirectly for
the federal government. With a workforce that size, decisions
about where the government locates its offices can have a
huge impact on a community's economic health. A 1996
Executive Order directs federal agencies to give first
consideration to locating their facilities in downtown
historic districts instead of out on the suburban fringe--but
two years after it was issued, compliance is spotty. Right
now, for example, in the small, economically-depressed town
of Glasgow, Montana, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is
putting its county office in a new building that will be
constructed in pastureland on the edge of town. A suitable
downtown building was available, but USDA rejected it because
the parking lot is a block away instead of right next door.
Relocating post offices to suburban sites can also deal a
body blow to a small-town Main Street--and put historic
buildings at risk as well. Because post offices serve an
important role in the social and business life of many towns,
the U.S. Postal Service needs to give communities more say in
where these essential facilities are to be located.
The federal tax code, in all its complexity, is heavily
tilted toward new development and the consumption of open
space. It needs to put at least as much emphasis on promoting
opportunities for revitalization and stabilization of older
communities. It needs to provide incentives--which are
currently lacking--for middle-class and moderate-income
households to become urban homeowners.
Federal water and sewer grants were originally intended as
a means of providing clean water and safe waste-treatment
facilities in rural areas. In practice, however, the ready
availability of this funding virtually invites development
further and further into countryside.
The list goes on and on, but the biggest offender of all is
federal transportation policy, which can be summed up in a
short phrase: ``feed the car, starve the alternative.'' As
Jessica Mathews wrote a while ago in the Washington Post,
``Americans are not irrationally car-crazed. We seem wedded
to the automobile because policy after . . . policy . . .
encourages us to be.'' Transportation officials generally try
to ``solve'' problems by building more roads--an approach
which is often like trying to cure obesity by loosening your
belt.
People need transportation choices and communities need
balanced transportation systems. Federal policy hasn't done a
good job of offering them--but that may be changing. The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21,
enacted last year, encourages planning that looks beyond
irrelevant political boundaries and allows for greater
citizen and local government participation in making
transportation investment decisions. That's welcome news,
certainly, but TEA-21 is a promissory note that will be
redeemed only through hard work at the state and local
levels. It offers a great opportunity for the federal
Department of Transportation to take a leadership role in
urging the states to take full advantage of this landmark
legislation.
Within the next few months, the General Accounting Office
will release its study on the extent to which federal
policies encourage sprawl, and I hope the report will prompt
a serious examination of these policies.
Second, the federal government should reward states and
communities that promote smart growth and help revitalize
existing communities.
Being anti-sprawl is not being anti-growth. The question is
not whether our communities should grow, but rather how they
will grow. More and more people--private citizens and public
officials alike--are realizing that the answer to that
question lies in sensible land-use planning.
Three states have recently launched different efforts to
manage sprawl. Last May, Tennessee passed a law that requires
counties and municipalities to adopt ``growth plans'' which,
among other things, set firm boundaries for new development
and public services. Closer to home, Governor Glendening's
Smart Growth initiative in Maryland is one of the most
innovative--and potentially one of the most significant--in
the country. Under Governor Whitman's leadership, residents
of New Jersey have approved up to $98 million in tax revenue
annually for conservation and historic preservation; over 10
years this measure will protect a million acres of land--a
marvelous gift to future generations.
We should encourage efforts like these in other states. I
suggest that we design a federal ``smart growth scorecard''--
a system that favors sensible, sustainable growth and
evaluates the effectiveness with which states and communities
meet that test. States that amend their building codes to
make them more ``rehab-friendly'' or that remove their
constitutional ban against the use of state gas tax revenues
for mass transit projects, for example, are taking positive
steps to fight sprawl and restore communities. They ought to
be rewarded. The federal scorecard would give states credit
for initiatives such as these and would give smart-growth
projects an edge in the competition for federal funds.
Third, the federal government should promote regional
cooperation as a key to effective control of sprawl.
Metropolitan areas now contain close to 80% of the total
U.S. population. Half the people in this country now live in
just 39 metropolitan areas. But governmental structures in no
way reflect this reality.
Urban decline and sprawl are practically guaranteed
wherever there is a balkanized system of local jurisdictions.
There's a perfect example right here in Washington, where our
metropolitan area is a patchwork quilt comprising two states,
the District of Columbia, a dozen counties and a score of
municipalities--each with its own budget, each following its
own agenda.
[[Page 3428]]
When it comes to sprawl, city limits and county lines are
often meaningless marks on a map. Limited jurisdiction makes
it hard for local government to deal with an issue of this
magnitude, and efforts to control sprawl in a limited area
often just shift the problem from one community to another.
It's like trying to stop a flood with a picket fence.
States need to encourage local governments in the same
region to better coordinate their land-use and transportation
plans, and the federal government can help a great deal by
simply providing basic information that regions need. Much of
this information--dealing with things such as the geographic
mismatch between workers and jobs and the extent of
outmigration from cities to suburbs--already exists, but it
is difficult and expensive for localities to obtain. That's a
fairly easy problem to fix, and the federal government ought
to do it.
While regionalism by itself does not curb sprawl, it can
moderate one of the engines of sprawl: the costly bidding
wars between neighboring jurisdictions for sprawl-type
development that holds out the hope for new tax revenues.
Admittedly, the performance of some regional governments has
been lackluster, but in other areas--Portland, Oregon, for
examples--regionalism is making a difference in addressing
the problems of sprawl and poorly managed growth. Encouraging
and assisting similar efforts all over the country should be
a cornerstone of federal policy.
Happily, the current Administration is taking an important
step in that direction. The ``Livability Agenda'' recently
announced by Vice President Gore proposes a major initiative
to reduce barriers to regional governance and to fund local
partnerships that pursue smart-growth strategies across
jurisdictional lines. This will be the first flexible source
of funding provided by the federal government to promote
smarter metropolitan growth. It's a very welcome initiative.
Controlling sprawl is only half the battle, which brings me
to the fourth thing the federal government should do: provide
incentives for reinvestment in existing communities.
Discussions about the plight of the cities often overlook a
simple fact: When people leave the city it's not necessarily
because they love sprawl or hate urban life, but because
leaving is the rational thing to do. More than anything else,
urban flight is an indictment of bad schools, crime and poor
public services. As if this ``push'' weren't enough, people
are ``pulled'' out of the city by policies and practices that
make homes and infrastructure in the suburbs less expensive
and easier to build.
In place of this ``push-pull'' combination, we need public
policy that favors existing communities. Fifty years ago the
government began to offer economic inducements to families
that wanted to flee to the suburbs; it's time to offer those
same kinds of inducements to entice middle-class residents to
return to, or stay in, the city.
It all comes down to choosing where to make investments. If
the federal government chooses to pour funding into more
outer beltways and more suburban infrastructure, sprawl will
continue to spread like an epidemic. But if the government
makes a commitment to existing communities, it can have an
enormous, positive impact on the critical need to keep people
in urban neighborhoods and give others a reason to move back
to the city.
This is the missing piece of the administration's
Livability Agenda, which includes a heavy focus on the
preservation of open space. There's no question that we need
to speed up our efforts to protect open space and farmland
through land trusts, easements, the purchase of development
rights and other means. Saving greenspace is a very good
thing, but it's not enough by itself. We could buy all the
open land in the country and still not solve the problem of
sprawl. We also need to focus energies and resources on
reclaiming the streets and neighborhoods where people live--
the towns, inner cities and older suburbs that we've
neglected so badly for the past half-century. We must develop
housing policies and programs that advance the goal of
economic integration of our communities and lessen the
concentration of poor households in inner-city areas. We must
attract middle-income families back to the towns and cities,
and we must improve the quality of housing for lower-income
people.
One way to do this is by enacting the Historic
Homeownership Assistance Act. This legislation, which has
broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, would
extend federal tax credits to homeowners who renovate their
historic homes, giving residents of older neighborhoods
incentives to stay and invest in their community's future,
and providing an incentive for others to move back into the
city. By offering a way to put deteriorated property back on
the tax rolls while making homeownership more affordable for
lower-income residents, this law could greatly benefit
communities all over the country. Obviously, this one act
won't solve America's urban problems--but it can help, and a
step in the right direction is better than standing still.
In fighting sprawl, we're dealing with an issue that
undermines many of the national goals and values that we've
embraced over the years. The provision of affordable housing,
improved mobility, a clean environment, the transition from
welfare to work, the livability and economic health of our
communities--all of these are undermined by sprawl. In fact,
there is scarcely a single national problem that is not
exacerbated by sprawl or that would not be alleviated if
sprawl were better contained.
We can continue turning much of our nation into a tragic
patchwork of ruined cities and spoiled countryside, or we can
insist on sensible federal policies that strengthen
communities instead of scattering them randomly across the
landscape.
We can keep on accepting the kind of communities we get, or
we can summon the national will to demand the kind of
communities we want and need and deserve.
The choice is ours, and the time to make that choice is
now.
____________________
FIGHT DIABETES
______
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
of vermont
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my
Colleagues to the following letter I received from a young Vermonter.
Philip Burgin-Young is nine years old, and likes to play soccer, as
well as study math and science. At the same time, Philip has to
regularly check his blood sugar, take three insulin shots a day, and
closely watch what he eats, because he is diabetic. Like Philip, I
believe that our government must do more for the 16 million Americans
suffering from diabetes by investing in a cure to the disease.
I call the attention of my colleagues to this moving letter and
submit the letter for the Congressional Record for their benefit.
February 21, 1999.
Hon. Bernie Sanders,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sanders: My name is Philip Burgin-
Young, and I am nine years old. I have had diabetes almost
four years. I love to play soccer, study math, and experiment
with science. To be able to do these things, I have to work
real hard to take care of my diabetes. That means that I
check my blood sugar at least six times a day (but usually
closer to ten times), have at least three shots of insulin a
day (in my stomach, arms, legs, and buttocks), count every
gram of carbohydrate and fat that I eat, and make sure that I
exercise a lot to keep my blood sugar balanced. My parents
also check my blood sugar in the middle of the night while I
am sleeping. But even doing these things, it is impossible to
keep my blood sugar in the normal range all of the time.
Diabetes is a very complex thing.
It is not easy to describe what it is like living with
diabetes. But I have two stories that can describe it a
little. The first story is about something my sister said to
me. One day my sister said that if she had diabetes and then
a cure was discovered, she would go out and eat a dozen
donuts. She asked me what I would do. I said, ``I wouldn't go
out and eat a dozen donuts. I WOULD JUST BE SO RELIEVED!'' I
could tell that she couldn't really understand what it feels
like to live with diabetes every minute of every day, even
though she does help me with my diabetes. The second story is
about something that happens all of the time, because I play
soccer on a couple of teams. Before I go on the field I
always check my blood sugar to make sure that I'm not too
high or too low. If I'm too high, I can't play and I need to
have a shot of insulin. Even though I do everything I am
supposed to do to take care of my diabetes, this does happen
and I missed the beginning of our playoffs because I was too
high. If I'm too low, I also can't play and have to wait
about 15 minutes for the food that I eat to get into my
system. Then, during half time I do the same thing--I recheck
my blood sugar. At the end of the game I check again to make
sure I'm not too low or too high.
I want a cure for diabetes so that I can do what I want
with my life--I want to be healthy and I want to help other
people by being a scientist who helps to find cures for
diseases. I also want a cure for all of the other people who
have diabetes. As hard as it is for me with diabetes, at
least I am lucky because my mom and dad and sister help me
try to take real good care of myself. Some kids aren't so
lucky and they end up in the hospital often.
Will you please vote for more money for research, to try to
find a cure for diabetes? I know that with more money
scientists will be able to find a cure more easily. There are
so many areas that are being researched and if they don't
have enough money they can't do the research. PLEASE HELP!
Sincerely,
Philip Burgin-Young.
[[Page 3429]]
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE STERLING HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Sterling High
School girls basketball team on the Class 4A District 4 Championship.
The Sterling players, led by Coach Darrell Parker, will now advance
to the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at
the Colorado State 4A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Sterling High
School girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 4A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 4 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE CALICHE HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Caliche High
School boys basketball team on their Class 2A District 2 Championship.
The Caliche players, led by Coach Rocky Samber, will now advance to
the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State 2A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Caliche High
School boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colordao 2A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 2 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE SWINK HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Swink High
School boys basketball team on their Class 2A District 4 Championship.
The Swink players, led by Coach Tim Jordan, will now advance to the
next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State 2A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Swink High School
boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado 2A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 4 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE CHERAW HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Cheraw High
School girls basketball team on their Class A District 2 Championship.
The Cheraw players, led by Coach Charles Phillips, will now advance
to the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at
the Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Cheraw High School
girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 2 Championship.
____________________
TRUE COMMUNITY SERVICE: IN HONOR OF SISTER MARY ALICE MURPHY
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sister Mary
Alice Murphy. September 1, 1999 marks the end of an era defined by
community service as Sister Murphy will step down as executive director
of Community Affordable Residences Enterprises. Known as CARE, the
organization builds affordable housing for low-income residents in Fort
Collins.
A Roman Catholic nun, Sister Murphy came to Fort Collins in 1983 to
lead Catholic Charities Northern where she recognized the need for
affordable housing in my hometown. Keep in mind, before 1993,
affordable housing was not even on City Council's policy agenda. She
had the foresight to point out a problem 16 years ago that today has
become one of the most crucial issues in Fort Collins. Sister Mary
Alice could have stopped there like most critics do, just pointing out
a problem, but she acted and led the leaders. She developed a plan for
low income residents in Fort Collins which resulted in the construction
of the Mission homeless shelter in 1989.
Again acting with foresight, Sister Mary Alice knew the Mission
shelter was only temporary, and shelter residents would eventually need
a more permanent place. CARE wanted to build new homes for low-income
residents because renovation of existing homes in Fort Collins was not
the optimum solution. Sister Mary Alice sheparded CARE's construction
of the 40-unit Greenbriar complex in 1995, the first of three new
housing units for low-income families.
Now in 1999, after almost two decades of service to low-income
families in Fort Collins, CARE, under Sister Mary Alice's direction,
has built three affordable housing complexes with 116 new housing units
in Fort Collins and plans are in the making for a fourth project. When
Sister Mary Alice steps down in September, I am proud to say she will
still be involved with affordable housing in Fort Collins by assuming
an advisory role in CARE's board of directors.
Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to pay tribute to a woman who
exemplifies community service, service to humanity and faith in God.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy is the person who identified the need for
affordable housing in Fort Collins and followed through by sheparding
the construction of it. We need more citizens like Sister Mary Alice
who see problems and fixes them.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE GENOA-HUGO HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Genoa-Hugo High
School boys
[[Page 3430]]
basketball team on their Class A District 7 Championship.
The Genoa-Hugo players, led by Coach Casey Moats, will now advance to
the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Genoa-Hugo High
School boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 7 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE DEER TRAIL HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Deer Trail High
School girls basketball team on their Class A District 8 Championship.
The Deer Trail players, led by Coach Robert Kelley, will now advance
to the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at
the Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Deer Trail High
School girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 8 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE IDALIA HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Idalia High
School boys basketball team on their Class A District 5 Championship.
The Idalia players, led by Coach Dave Eastin, will now advance to the
next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Idalia High School
boys basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 5 Championship.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE IDALIA HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. BOB SCHAFFER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Idalia High
School girls basketball team on their Class A District 5 Championship.
The Idalia players, led by Coach Mike Waitman, will now advance to
the next level in the state basketball playoffs and their shot at the
Colorado State A Championship.
All teams, no matter what the sport, continually strive to find that
special and unique combination of teamwork, leadership, skill and
effort which unlocks the door to success. Under careful tutelage, hard-
working teams not only win games, but also build the confidence
necessary to win championships. Clearly, these dedicated hoopsters have
found this winning formula and attained the next rung of sporting
success.
Greater challenges remain, however, and I wish the Idalia High School
girls basketball team the best of luck in the Colorado A State
Championship. No matter what the outcome of the next game, this team
has proven it has the heart of a champion, and can take pride in the
District 5 Championship.
____________________