[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[Issue]
[Pages 10691-10909]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 10691]]
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.
May 25, 1999
May 25, 1999
SENATE--Tuesday, May 25, 1999
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
George V. Voinovich, a Senator from the State of Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This morning we are privileged to have with us
a guest Chaplain, Dr. Ronnie W. Floyd, of the First Baptist Church,
Springdale, AR.
Pastor Floyd.
______
prayer
The guest Chaplain, Dr. Ronnie W. Floyd, First Baptist Church,
Springdale, AR, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray together.
Holy God, I thank You that Your Word says in Romans 13:1, ``For there
is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established
by God.'' I am thankful the authority granted to these Senators today
has not been granted simply by their constituencies but, most of all,
that authority is given by You.
Therefore, O God, the responsibility is so great upon these men and
women today. Every decision that is made has such a great impact all
across the world.
So Lord, I ask for the Holy Spirit of God to empower these leaders in
their decisionmaking today. May the Word of God be their source of
authority. May the Lord Jesus Christ be the only One they desire to
please. May the people they represent in this country, whether rich or
poor, male or female, or whatever race they may represent, be the
beneficiaries of godly, holy, decisionmaking today.
O Father, America needs spiritual revival, reformation, and
awakening. So God, in the name of Your son, Jesus Christ, we close this
prayer, asking You and believing in You to send a spiritual revival to
our Nation that would change lives, renew churches, restore and refresh
family relationships, provide hope to every American and, most of all,
give You glory. Amen.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, May 25, 1999.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable George V.
Voinovich, a Senator from the State of Ohio, to perform the
duties of the Chair.
Strom Thurmond,
President pro tempore.
Mr. VOINOVICH thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield to the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
____________________
DR. RONNIE W. FLOYD, GUEST CHAPLAIN
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I take a moment to express my
appreciation to our guest Chaplain, Pastor Ronnie Floyd, Pastor of the
First Baptist Church, Springdale, AR, who led the Senate in our opening
prayer today. Chaplain Ogilvie was gracious enough to allow Pastor
Floyd to lead us in prayer.
Pastor Floyd has been a dear friend of mine for many years; he has
had a tremendous impact upon my family and my children. I have a son
and daughter-in-law who today still worship in his church and have been
greatly impacted by his ministry. Pastor Floyd has a national
television ministry and has touched lives all across this country. It
is a great privilege today to have him in our Nation's Capitol
ministering to us in the Senate.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the leader has asked me to
make a couple of announcements this morning.
The Senate, of course, will resume consideration of the defense
authorization bill, and under the previous order the Senate will debate
several amendments with the votes on those amendments occurring in a
stacked sequence beginning at 2:15 today. Therefore, Senators can
expect at least three votes occurring at 2:15 this afternoon. It is the
intention of the majority leader to complete action on this bill as
early as possible this week, and therefore Senators can expect busy
sessions each day and evening.
I thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1059, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
A bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2000 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Roberts/Warner amendment No. 377, to express the sense of the Senate
regarding the legal effect of the new Strategic Concept of NATO (the
document approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in
the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., on April
23 and 24, 1999).
Warner amendment No. 378 (to Amendment No. 377), to require the
President to submit to the Senate a report containing an analysis of
the potential threats facing NATO in the first decade of the next
millennium, with particular reference to those threats facing a member
nation or several member nations where the commitment of NATO forces
will be ``out of area'', or beyond the borders of NATO member nations.
Wellstone amendment No. 380, to expand the list of diseases presumed
to be service-connected for radiation-exposed veterans.
Wellstone amendment No. 381, to require the Secretary of Defense to
provide information and technical guidance to certain foreign nations
regarding environmental contamination at United States military
installations closed or being closed in such nations.
Wellstone amendment No. 382, to require the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to provide Congress with information to evaluate the
outcome of welfare reform.
Specter amendment No. 383, to direct the President, pursuant to the
United
[[Page 10692]]
States Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to seek approval
from Congress prior to the introduction of ground troops from the
United States Armed Forces in connection with the present operations
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or funding for that
operation will not be authorized.
Roth amendment No. 388, to request the President to advance the late
Rear Adm. (retired) Husband E. Kimmel on the retired list of the Navy
to the highest grade held as Commander in Chief, United States Fleet,
during World War II, and to advance the late Maj. Gen. (retired) Walter
C. Short on the retired list of the Army to the highest grade held as
Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, during World War II, as was
done under the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 for all other senior
officers who served in positions of command during World War II.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that Maj. Clint Crosier, an Air Force fellow in my office, be granted
floor privileges throughout the proceedings on the fiscal year 2000
authorization and appropriations bills.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire pertaining to the
submission of S.J. Res. 25 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Amendment No. 388
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 30 minutes of debate, equally divided, with an additional 10
minutes under the control of the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm,
relative to the Roth amendment No. 388.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, which
will at long last restore the reputations of two distinguished military
officers who were unfairly scapegoated for the surprise attack on Pearl
Harbor by Japan at the beginning of World War II--Admiral Husband E.
Kimmel of the United States Navy and General Walter C. Short of the
United States Army.
This amendment gives us an opportunity to correct a serious wrong in
the history of that war. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the Navy
and Army commanders at Pearl Harbor during the attack on December 7,
1941. Despite their loyal and distinguished service, Admiral Kimmel and
General Short were unfairly singled out for blame for the nation's lack
of preparation for that attack and the catastrophe that took place.
Justice for these men is long overdue. Wartime investigations of the
attack on Pearl Harbor concluded that our fleet in Hawaii under the
command of Admiral Kimmel and our land forces under the command of
General Short had been properly positioned, given the information they
had received, and that their superior officers had not given them vital
intelligence that could have made a difference, perhaps all the
difference, in America's preparedness for the attack. These conclusions
of the wartime investigations were kept secret, in order to protect the
war effort. Clearly, there is no longer any justification for ignoring
these facts.
I first became interested in this issue when I received a letter last
fall from a good friend in Boston who for many years has been one of
the pre-eminent lawyers in America, Edward B. Hanify. As a young Navy
lawyer and Lieutenant J.G. in 1944, Mr. Hanify was assigned as counsel
to Admiral Kimmel.
As Mr. Hanify told me, he is probably one of the few surviving people
that heard Kimmel's testimony before the Naval Court of Inquiry. He
accompanied Admiral Kimmel when he testified before the Army Board of
Investigation, and he later heard substantially all the testimony in
the lengthy Congressional investigation of Pearl Harbor that followed
by the Roberts Commission. In the 50 years since then, Mr. Hanify has
carefully followed all subsequent developments on the Pearl Harbor
catastrophe and the allocation of responsibility for that disaster.
I would like to quote a few brief paragraphs from Mr. Hanify's letter
of last September, because it eloquently summarizes the overwhelming
case for long undue justice for Admiral Kimmel. Mr Hanify writes:
The odious charge of ``dereliction of duty'' made by the
Roberts Commission was the cause of almost irreparable damage
to the reputation of Admiral Kimmel, despite the fact that
the finding was later repudiated and found groundless.
I am satisfied that Admiral Kimmel was subject to callous
and cruel treatment by his superiors who were attempting to
deflect the blame ultimately ascribed to them, particularly
on account of their strange behavior on the evening of
December 6th and morning of December 7th in failing to warn
the Pacific Fleet and the Hawaiian Army Department that a
Japanese attack on the United States was scheduled for
December 7th, and that intercepted intelligence indicated
that Pearl Harbor was a most probable point of attack.
Washington had this intelligence and knew that the Navy and
Army in Hawaii did not have it, or any means of obtaining it.
Subsequent investigation by both services repudiated the
``dereliction of duty'' charge. In the case of Admiral
Kimmel, the Naval Court of Inquiry found that his plans and
dispositions were adequate and competent in light of the
information which he had from Washington--adequate and
competent in the light of the information he had from
Washington.
Mr. Hanify concludes:
The proposed legislation provides some measure of remedial
Justice to a conscientious officer who for years unjustly
bore the odium and disgrace associated with the Pearl Harbor
catastrophe.
I have also heard from the surviving son of Admiral Kimmel. He and
others in his family have fought for over half a century to restore
their father's honor and reputation. As Edward Kimmel wrote:
Justice for my father and Major General Short is long
overdue. It has been a long hard struggle by the Kimmel and
Short families to get to this point.
No public action can ever fully atone for the injustice suffered by
these two officers. But the Senate can do its part by acting now to
correct the historical record, and restore the distinguished
reputations of Admiral Kimmel and General Short.
I commend Senator Biden and Senator Roth for their leadership on this
amendment, and I urge the Senate to support it, and I ask unanimous
consent that Mr. Hanify's letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am advised that a Resolution known
as the Roth/Biden Resolution has been introduced in the
Senate and that it has presently the support of the following
Senators: Roth; Biden; Helms; Thurmond; Inouye; Stevens;
Specter; Hollings; Faircloth; Cochran and McCain. The
substance of the Resolution is to request the President to
advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade
of Admiral on the retired list of the Navy and to advance the
late Major General Walter C. Short to the grade of Lieutenant
General on the retired list of the Army.
Admiral Kimmel at the time of Pearl Harbor was Commander in
Chief of the Pacific Fleet then based in Pearl Harbor and
General Short was the Commanding General of the Hawaiian
Department of the Army.
The reason for my interest in this Resolution is as
follows: In early 1944 when I was a Lieutenant j.g.
(U.S.N.R.) the Navy Department gave me orders which assigned
me as one of counsel to the defense of Admiral Kimmel in the
event of his promised court martial. As a consequence, I am
probably one of the few living persons who heard the
testimony before the Naval Court of Inquiry, accompanied
Admiral Kimmel when he testified before the Army Board of
Investigation and later heard substantially all the testimony
before the members of Congress who carried on the lengthy
Congressional investigation of Pearl Harbor. In the
intervening fifty years I have followed very carefully all
subsequent developments dealing with the Pearl Harbor
catastrophe and the allocation of responsibility for that
disaster.
On the basis of this experience and further studies over a
fifty year period I feel strongly:
(1) That the odious charge of ``dereliction of duty'' made
by the Roberts Commission was the cause of almost irreparable
damage to the reputation of Admiral Kimmel despite the fact
that the finding was later repudiated and found groundless;
[[Page 10693]]
(2) I am satisfied that Admiral Kimmel was subject to
callous and cruel treatment by his superiors who were
attempting to deflect the blame ultimately ascribed to them,
particularly on account of their strange behavior on the
evening of December 6th and morning of December 7th in
failing to warn the Pacific Fleet and the Hawaiian Army
Department that a Japanese attack on the United States was
scheduled for December 7th at 1:00 p.m. Washington time (dawn
at Pearl Harbor) and that intercepted intelligence indicated
that Pearl Harbor was a most probable point of attack;
(Washington had this intelligence and knew that the Navy and
Army in Hawaii did not have it or any means of obtaining it).
(3) Subsequent investigations by both services repudiated
the ``dereliction of duty'' charge and in the case of Admiral
Kimmel the Naval Court of Inquiry found that his plans and
dispositions were adequate and competent in light of the
information which he had from Washington.
The proposed legislation provides some measure of remedial
Justice to a conscientious officer who for years unjustly
bore the odium and disgrace associated with the Pearl Harbor
catastrophe. You may be interested to know that a Senator
from Massachusetts, Honorable David I. Walsh then Chairman of
the Naval Affairs Committee, was most effective in securing
legislation by Congress which ordered the Army and Navy
Departments to investigate the Pearl harbor disaster--an
investigation conducted with all the ``due process''
safeguards for all interested parties not observed in other
investigations or inquiries.
I sincerely hope that you will support the Roth/Biden
Resolution.
Sincerely,
Edward B. Hanify.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
On December 7, 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan, the
commanders on the ground were Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General
Short. Rear Admiral Kimmel was serving in the grade of admiral as
commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and commander in chief, U.S.
Pacific Fleet. Major General Short was serving in the grade of
lieutenant general as commander of the U.S. Army Hawaiian Department.
Based on their performance at Pearl Harbor, both officers were relieved
of their commands and were returned to their permanent ranks of rear
admiral and major general on December 16, 1941.
The duty performance of Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short
has been the subject of numerous military, governmental, and
congressional inquiries since that time. The most recent examination
was by Under Secretary of Defense Edwin Dorn in 1995.
The Defense Department, after reviewing all of these inquiries, has
concluded that posthumous advancement in rank is not appropriate. In
short, in this 1995 review, the Department of Defense concluded that
Admiral Kimmel and General Short, as commanders on the scene, were
responsible and accountable for the actions of their commands.
Accountability as commanders is a core value in our Armed Forces.
Rear Admiral Kimmel's and Major General Short's superiors at the time
determined that their service was not satisfactory and relieved them of
their commands and returned them to their permanent grades. We should
not, in my judgment, some 57 years later, substitute the judgment of a
political body--the Congress--for what was essentially a military
decision by the appropriate chain of command at the time.
Those who were in the best position to characterize their service
have done so. Their superiors concluded that Rear Admiral Kimmel and
Major General Short did not demonstrate the judgment required of people
who serve at the three- and four-star level. I do not believe that this
political body should now attempt to reverse that decision made by the
chains of command in our military service. So I join the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee in opposing this amendment.
I also note the letter from the Secretary of Defense to the then
chairman of our committee, Strom Thurmond, saying the following:
While Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Mr. Edwin Dorn, conducted a thorough review of
this issue in 1995. He carefully considered the information
contained in nine previous formal investigations, visited
Pearl Harbor and personally met with the Kimmel and Short
families. His conclusion was that responsibility for the
Pearl Harbor disaster must be broadly shared, but that the
record does not show that advancement of Admiral Kimmel and
General Short on the retired list is warranted.
I appreciate the fact that the overwhelming consensus of
the organizations and personnel mentioned in your letter
recommend exoneration of Admiral Kimmel and General Short.
Absent significant new information, however, I do not believe
it appropriate to order another review of this matter.
Ed Dorn and I both agree that responsibility for this
tragic event in American history must be broadly shared, yet
I remain confident in the findings that Admiral Kimmel and
General Short remain accountable in their positions as
leaders.
To highlight very briefly the findings of the Under Secretary of
Defense in the Dorn report, referred to by the Secretary of Defense, I
will quote three or four of the findings.
Finding 1:
Responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not
fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General
Short; it should be broadly shared.
Finding 2:
To say that responsibility is broadly shared is not to
absolve Admiral Kimmel and General Short of accountability.
Military command is unique. A commander has plenary
responsibility for the welfare of the people under his or her
command, and is directly accountable for everything the unit
does or fails to do. . . . Command at the three- and four-
star level involves daunting responsibilities. Military
officers at that level operate with a great deal of
independence. They must have extraordinary skill, foresight
and judgment, and a willingness to be accountable for things
about which they could not possibly have personal knowledge.
. . .
It was appropriate that Admiral Kimmel and General Short be
relieved.
Then he goes into the information that he had.
I yield myself just 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator may continue.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, finally in finding 3, the Dorn report says:
The official treatment of Admiral Kimmel and General Short
was substantively temperate and procedurally proper.
Then finally:
There is not a compelling basis for advancing either
officer to a higher grade.
Their superiors concluded that Admiral Kimmel and General
Short did not demonstrate the judgment required of people who
serve at the three- and four-star level.
* * * * *
In sum, I cannot conclude that Admiral Kimmel and General
Short were victims of unfair official actions and thus I
cannot conclude that the official remedy of advancement on
the retired list [is] in order.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that portions of the Dorn
report and the Secretary of Defense letter in opposition to the
advancement of these two gentlemen be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Memorandum for the Deputy Secretary of Defense]
Advancement of Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short
1. Responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not
fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General
Short; it should be broadly shared.
2. To say that responsibility is broadly shared is not to
absolve Admiral Kimmel and General Short of accountability.
3. The official treatment of Admiral Kimmel and General
Short was substantively temperate and procedurally proper.
There is not a compelling basis for advancing either
officer to a higher grade.
His nomination is subject to the advice and consent of the
Senate. A nominee's errors and indiscretions must be reported
to the Senate as adverse information.
In sum, I cannot conclude that Admiral Kimmel and General
Short were victims of unfair official actions and thus I
cannot conclude that the official remedy of advancement to
the retired list in order. Admiral Kimmel and General Short
did not have all the resources they felt necessary. Had they
been provided more intelligence and clearer guidance, they
might have understood their situation more clearly and
behaved differently. Thus, responsibility for the magnitude
of the Pearl Harbor disaster must be shared. But this is not
a basis for contradicting the conclusion, drawn consistently
over several investigations, that Admiral Kimmel and General
Short committed errors
[[Page 10694]]
of judgment. As commanders, they were accountable.
____
The Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, November 18, 1997.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your interest in
exonerating the names of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. In
the years since the fateful events at Pearl Harbor there have
been numerous formal investigations of the events leading up
to the attack, including sharp debate over our state of
readiness at the time.
While Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Mr. Edwin Dorn conducted a thorough review of this
issue in 1995. He carefully considered the information
contained in nine previous formal investigations, visited
Pearl Harbor and personally met with the Kimmel and Short
families. His conclusion was that responsibility for the
Pearl Harbor disaster must be broadly shared, but that the
record does not show that advancement of Admiral Kimmel and
General Short on the retired list is warranted.
I appreciate the fact that the overwhelming consensus of
the organizations and personnel mentioned in your letter
recommend exoneration of Admiral Kimmel and General Short.
Absent significant new information, however, I do not believe
it appropriate to order another review of this matter.
Ed Dorn and I both agree that responsibility for this
tragic event in American history must be broadly shared, yet
I remain confident in the findings that Admiral Kimmel and
General Short remain accountable in their positions as
leaders.
Sincerely,
Bill Cohen.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
I rise to address the Kimmel-Short resolution which I and Senators
Biden, Thurmond, and Kennedy introduced to redress a grave injustice
that haunts us from World War II.
That injustice was the scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General
Short for the success of the disastrous Pearl Harbor attack. This
unjust scapegoating was given unjust permanence when these two officers
were not advanced on the retirement list to their highest ranks of
wartime command, an honor that was given to every other senior
commander who served in wartime positions above his regular grade.
Our amendment is almost an exact rewrite of Senate Joint Resolution
19, that benefits from the support of 23 cosponsors. It calls for the
advancement on the retirement lists of Kimmel and Short to the grades
of their highest wartime commands--as was done for every other officer
eligible under the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
Such a statement by the Senate would do much to remove the stigma of
blame that so unfairly burdens the reputation of these two officers. It
is a correction consistent with our military tradition of honor.
Allow me to review some key facts about this issue.
First, it is a fact that Kimmel and Short were the only two World War
II officers eligible under the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 for
advancement on the retired list who were not granted such advancement.
No other officer or official paid a price for their role in the Pearl
Harbor disaster. That fact alone unfairly perpetuates the scapegoating
they endured for the remainder of their lives.
Second, there have been no less than nine official investigations on
this matter over the last five decades. They include the 1944 Naval
Court of Inquiry which completely exonerated Admiral Kimmel and the
1944 Army Pearl Harbor Board who found considerable fault in the War
Department--General Short's superiors. These investigations include
that conducted by a 1991 Board for the Correction of Military Records
which recommended General Short's advancement on the retired list.
I can think of few issues of this nature that have been as
extensively investigated and studied as the Pearl Harbor matter. Nor
can I think of a series of studies conducted over five decades where
conclusions have been so remarkably consistent.
They include, first, the Hawaiian commanders were not provided vital
intelligence they needed and that was available in Washington prior to
the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were proper and
consistent with the information made available to Admiral Kimmel and
General Short.
Third, these investigations found that the handling of intelligence
and command responsibilities in Washington were characterized by
ineptitude, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of
clarification followup.
Fourth, these investigations found that these failures and
shortcomings of the senior authorities in Washington contributed
significantly, if not predominantly, to the success of the surprise
attack on Pearl Harbor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 4 minutes have expired.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I understand under the previous order I
have 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have the highest regard for Senator Roth,
our distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. One can tell by
looking at all the books on his desk that he has done considerable
research in this area. I have not done similar research in this area.
But this is an issue that I have followed for my period of service in
Congress, and I have followed it in part because of an interest in it,
and in part because of my interest in the efforts of Dr. Samuel Mudd to
exonerate his name from the role that he is alleged to have played and
in fact was convicted of playing in the post-assassination activities
related to President Lincoln.
But I have come to the floor today to oppose this amendment because I
strongly object to Congress getting into the business of rewriting
history.
This is an old issue. There has been a lot of talk over the years
about Admiral Kimmel and about General Short, and about the facts in
the wake of the greatest military disaster in American history at Pearl
Harbor. And there is no question about the fact that we were asleep on
December 7th of 1941. There is no question about the fact that Kimmel
and Short had a great shortcoming in that they did not talk to each
other and put together the information they had. But there is probably
no question about the fact that in the wake of that disaster, there was
an effort to put the blame on someone. It is also true that subsequent
studies have concluded there was broad culpability.
But here is the point I want to make. We have a Board for the
Correction of Military Records. We have an on-going process within the
Department of Defense to reevaluate decisions that have been made. This
decision about Kimmel and Short bubbled all the way up to President
Bush, who as you know, was the youngest naval aviator in American
history in World War II.
President Bush decided to let contemporaries be the judge of
historical events, and so he made the decision not to override the
decision of military leaders at the time of Pearl Harbor.
We had another review that ended on December 15th of 1995. That
review was headed by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Edwin S. Dorn. Dorn concluded that, while it was clear that
there was broad culpability, there was not sufficient evidence
available now to override the previous decision, which did not include
court-martial of these two military leaders; it simply included
retiring them at their permanent rank rather than their temporary rank.
Some of you will remember this issue because we went through it with
a four-star admiral when there were questions about the abuse of women
on his watch in the Navy. Some of you will remember that we actually
had to cast a vote in that case. The issue was whether he should retire
at his permanent rank, which was a two-star admiral, or as a four-star
admiral. We had a very close vote on the decision to allow him to
retire with his four-star rank, which he held on the day he left the
military.
It is true that normally, military flag officers are allowed to
retire above
[[Page 10695]]
their permanent rank to the higher temporary rank held on the day they
are severed from the military. But that is not always the case, and it
is normally done as an indication that they have provided excellent
service.
It was not an extraordinary thing in the wake of Pearl Harbor to, No.
1, retire the two officers in charge and, No. 2, retire them at their
permanent rank rather than elevating their rank upon retirement.
I urge my colleagues, with all due respect to Senator Roth, to let
history be the judge of what happened at Pearl Harbor. We have a
process within the Defense Department where recommendations can be
made, where facts can be gathered on an objective basis, where the
review can come up to the level of the Secretary of Defense and then
come to the President, if necessary, to make a final decision.
President Bush refused to override the judgment of history. The Clinton
administration, through Under Secretary Dorn, has refused to override
the judgment of history.
Now, there is no doubt about the fact that Senator Roth believes he
is sufficiently knowledgeable about this case to override the judgment
of history here. But I ask the other 99 Members of the Senate, are we
sufficiently informed? Do we want to set a precedent here or build on
precedents, bad precedents in my opinion, that have been set in the
past, of trying to write history on the floor of the Senate? I think we
need to leave it to the official process. We need to leave it to
historians to make these judgments.
I have been personally involved now for several years with the Dr.
Mudd case. What has happened in that case is that Dr. Mudd has many
influential heirs and they have set a goal of exonerating him. We now
have gone through this extraordinary process where we literally are on
the verge of making a decision, where the Federal courts have gotten
involved, not on the issue of whether Dr. Mudd was guilty. Having met
John Wilkes Booth three times, being a physician whose job it was to
recognize traits in people, he supposedly treated John Wilkes Booth and
never recognized him. Contemporaries at the time said no. As a result,
they sent him to prison. He was later pardoned due to some of the good
work he did in prison. Never again in his lifetime did he challenge the
judgment. But yet now we are on the verge of having, because of the
political influence of that family, a decision in the Defense
Department to override history.
I think we make a mistake by doing that. In this case, we have had a
judgment by President Bush, a naval aviator, a hero of the very war
where this decision was made, who decided not to rewrite history.
I think we should not decide to rewrite history here today. I think
this amendment is well intended and based on tremendous research and on
a great deal of fact. The point is, we are not the body that should be
making this judgment. There is a process underway. That process has
come to the level of the President once; it has come to the level of
the Under Secretary of Defense once; and in both cases, they have said
they would allow the judgment of history to stand.
It is not as if these two military leaders were court-martialed. They
were simply retired, something that happens every day in the military.
And they were retired at their permanent rank, which is not ordinary
but it is certainly not extraordinary.
What should be extraordinary is that retirement at temporary rank
ought to be a reward for conspicuous service. And while each of us can
make our judgment about history that occurred in 1941, almost 58 years
ago, I do not believe we have the ability, nor do I believe we have the
moral authority as a political body, to go back and rewrite history. I
ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
We are not rewriting history. We are merely correcting the record.
Just let me point out that the Dorn report, which has been mentioned
time and again by those in opposition, specifically concluded that
responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on
the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it should be broadly
shared. Let me emphasize that: It should be broadly shared. In other
words, there were others responsible, primarily in Washington. To place
the blame on these two gentlemen, who had distinguished military
careers, is wrong and is unfair. I believe we have a responsibility, a
duty, to recommend to the President action that corrects this
unfortunate misdeed.
In making this decision, let me point out that a number of
endorsements of my resolution have been received from senior retired
officers of the highest rank. For example, Arleigh Burke sent a letter
in which he concluded that:
It is my considered judgment that when all the
circumstances are considered that you should approve this
posthumous promotion and recommend it to the President.
The record is clear that important information, available
to the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, was never
made available to Admiral Kimmel in Hawaii.
Lastly, the Naval Court of Inquiry, which exonerated
Admiral Kimmel, concluded that his military decisions were
proper based on the information available to him.
Let me now refer to a letter we received from several distinguished
members of the Navy: Thomas Moorer, Admiral, U.S. Navy; former
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe, Admiral, U.S. Navy;
J.L. Holloway, Admiral, U.S. Navy; Elmo Zumwalt, Admiral, U.S. Navy.
They wrote:
We ask that the honor and reputations of two fine officers
who dedicated themselves to the service of their country be
restored. Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short
were singularly scapegoated as responsible for the success of
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. The
time is long overdue to reverse this inequity and treat
Admiral Kimmel and [G]eneral Short fairly and justly. The
appropriate vehicle for that is the current Roth-Biden
Resolution.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last night the distinguished Senator Roth
and I had an extensive debate on this issue, and we are basically
covering much of the same ground this morning. I repeat, I just got off
the phone with the Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, his predecessor,
Bill Perry.
The Dorn report went through this whole case very carefully.
I recited the list of some nine tribunals, including the Congress of
the United States, that reviewed this matter, and certainly did not
reach any conclusion that the action to which my good friend and
colleague, the Senator from Delaware, asks the Senate to do today.
I associate myself with the remarks of our colleague from Texas.
But it is interesting. This is very extensive research performed by
our colleague. I took the liberty of taking the book last night and
going home to read it, which is a summary of the congressional
hearings. What I find interesting is that the Congress absolutely put
forward some of the most distinguished Members of the House and the
Senate to form the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl
Harbor Attack: Alben Barkley, Senator from Kentucky was the chairman;
Jere Cooper, Representative from Tennessee, was the Vice Chairman. On
the Senate side, just look at the names of the individuals. Based on my
own not personal knowledge but study of their careers in the Senate,
they certainly were viewed as among the giants of the Senate during
that critical period in history of World War II: Walter F. George,
Senator from Georgia; Scott Lucas, Senator from Illinois; Owen
Brewster, Senator from Maine; Homer Ferguson, Senator from Michigan.
They were the elderly statesmen, the leaders of the Senate.
In their report, this is what the Committee on the Investigation of
the Pearl Harbor Attack found. I refer to page 252. It says:
``Specifically, the Hawaiian commands failed'' to do the following.
By ``the Hawaiian commands,'' of course, they are referring to the
Naval command under Admiral Kimmel and the Army command under General
Short:
[[Page 10696]]
(a) To discharge their responsibilities in the light of the
warnings received from Washington, other information
possessed by them, and the principle of command by mutual
cooperation.
The record astonishingly shows that these two senior officers,
located on the principal islands of Hawaii, just did not collaborate
together and share information and ideas as to how best to plan for the
defense of the men and women of the Armed Forces, our interest in the
islands at that time, and the critical assets; namely, Naval ships and
aircraft that were located at that forward deployed area.
(b) To integrate and coordinate the facilities for defense
and to alert properly the Army and Navy establishments in
Hawaii, particularly in the light of the warnings and
intelligence available to them during the period November 27
to December 7, 1941.
(c) To effect liaison on a basis designed to acquaint each
of them with the operations of the other, which was necessary
to their joint security, and to exchange fully all
significant intelligence.
I am going to repeat that--failure to exchange between the two of
them and with their subordinant significant intelligence.
(d) To maintain a more effective reconnaissance within the
limits of their equipment.
(e) To effect a state of readiness throughout the Army and
Navy establishments designed to meet all possible attacks.
(f) To employ the facilities, materiel, and personnel at
their command, which were adequate at least to have greatly
minimized the effects of the attack, in repelling the
Japanese raiders.
(g) To appreciate the significance of intelligence and
other information available to them.
In fairness, I will read another finding, and that is:
The errors made by the Hawaiian commands were errors of
judgment and not derelictions of duty.
Had there been dereliction of duty, these two men would have been
court-martialed. But that was the decision made by the President of the
United States, two successive Presidents--Roosevelt and Truman--not to
do that. But they found them guilty of errors of judgment.
What we are asked to do is to put this body on notice that we are
reversing the findings of the distinguished bipartisan panel of
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives after taking all
of this factual evidence into consideration. Look at the voluminous
factual situation.
I asked my good friend last night: Are there any new facts on which
the Senate could have as a predicate the changing of this decision of
the joint congressional committee? And, quite candidly, my colleague
from Delaware said no.
Just to bring to the attention of the Senate one other part in this
report, it states on page 556:
The commanding officers in Hawaii had a particular
responsibility for the defense of the Pacific Fleet and the
Hawaiian coastal frontier. This responsibility they failed to
discharge.
I repeat, Mr. President, ``This responsibility they failed to
discharge.''
The failure of the Washington authorities to perform their
responsibility provides extenuating circumstances for the
failures of these commanders in the field.
This committee took into consideration that there were other failures
but there were extenuating circumstances to bring the judgment of this
panel to the conclusion that a court-martial was not to be held. But
they were to be retired in the grades which they were in at permanent
rank.
In this record is a request by these two officers to be retired, and
the decision was made not to advance them at the time of retirement to
the higher grade. That decision was made by individuals who had fresh
of mind the facts of this case.
For us at this date and time to try to reverse that, in my judgment,
would be to say to all of the tribunals that looked at this case--I
will recite them again--the Knox investigation of December 1941; the
Roberts Commission of January 1941; the Hart investigation of June
1944; Army Pearl Harbor Board, October of 1944; Navy Court of Inquiry,
October of 1944; Clark investigation, September of 1944; Hewitt
inquiry, July of 1945----
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The time of the Senator from
Virginia has expired.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Virginia be given an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. The Clausen investigation, September 12, 1945; and, the
joint congressional committee of May of 1945. It is the joint
congressional committee record--to now, after these many 50-plus years,
go back and reverse the decisions of all of this work done by
individuals, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, with the authority
to render such judgments would be to say to them: All of you are in
error for not having done what the Senator from Delaware requested the
Senate do these 50-plus years later.
I just think that is a very unwise decision. I think the Senator from
Delaware has put an awful lot of hard work into this. I respect him for
it. But I simply cannot support the Senator, nor can the current
Secretary of Defense, and, indeed, the previous Secretary of Defense,
and others who have looked at this set of documents previously.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
senior Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 4
minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my senior
colleague, Senator Roth, for carrying the load on this.
As we look forward to Memorial Day observances this weekend, most of
us will take time to reflect on the honorable and noble traditions of
our military. The amendment sponsored by myself and my good friends
Senator Roth, Thurmond, and Kennedy is an effort to make sure Congress
does its part to uphold those noble traditions.
Just to highlight two or three points: First of all, my friend from
Virginia talks about the historical record. The historical record was
made at that time when history was least likely to be served in the
immediate aftermath of a national tragedy, and a need for an
explanation that the country yearned and desired. I am not suggesting
those who conducted the original investigation had any benevolent
intent. I am suggesting that history is best viewed with a little bit
of distance. There was not any distance. I just ask everyone to think
about what would happen if something, God forbid, similarly happened
today and this Senate, this body, and the administration decided they
needed to investigate something immediately. My overwhelming instinct
tells me there would be a need to find specific individuals who were
responsible in order to satisfy our collective need for an answer.
I respectfully suggest that that is what happened here, and I
respectfully suggest, as well, that we should not be fearful of the
truth and we should not be fearful of going back in this open society
of ours and not rewriting history, but setting the facts straight.
Ultimately, it is the President who must take action, but it is
important that we in the Senate send the message that the historical
truth matters and that it is never too late to acknowledge that the
government did not treat the two commanding officers at Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1941, fairly.
Here's how I see it. Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter
Short were publicly vilified and never given a chance to clear their
names.
If we lived in a closed society, fearful of the truth, then there
would be no need for the President to take action. But we don't. We
live in an open society. Eventually, we are able to declassify
documents and evaluate our past based on at least a good portion of the
whole story. I believe sincerely that one of our greatest strengths as
a nation comes from our ability to honor truth and learn the lessons
from our past.
If we perpetuate the myth that Admiral Kimmel and General Short bear
all of the blame for Pearl Harbor then we miss the real story. We fail
to look at the readiness shortfalls they were facing--the lack of
adequate reconnaissance planes, pilots, spare parts, and
[[Page 10697]]
maintenance crews. We fail to look at the flawed intelligence model
that was used--the disconnect between what was obtained and what got to
the commanders in the field.
I mention these things in particular because there are some striking
parallels to the problems facing today's military. Today's problems are
of a different scope and scale, but it is important to see the
parallels so that we can accurately judge our progress and our endemic
problems.
The historic record is not flattering to our government in the case
of the two commanding officers at Pearl Harbor and that is why it is
our government's responsibility to acknowledge its mistake. I want to
emphasize that point, because it is important.
In last night's debate over this amendment, both those for and
against it agreed on most of the facts. Where there was disagreement,
it seems to me, was in what to do about the facts. I believe we should
urge the President to take action, because government action in the
past shrouded the truth and scapegoated Kimmel and Short.
I know Senator Roth and Senator Thurmond discussed some of the
history last night, so I will just briefly review some of the critical
parts.
In 1941, after lifetimes of honorable service defending this nation
and its values, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were denied the most
basic form of justice--a hearing by their peers. Instead of a proper
court-martial, their ordeal began on December 18th with the Roberts
Commission. A mere 11 days after the devastating attack at Pearl
Harbor, this Commission was established to determine the facts.
In this highly charged atmosphere, the Commission conducted a speedy
investigation, lasting little over a month. In the process, they denied
both commanders counsel and assured both that they would not be passing
judgement on their performance. That assurance was worthless. Instead,
the Commission delivered highly judgmental findings and then
immediately publicized those findings. The Roberts Commission is the
only investigative body to find these two officers derelict in their
duty and it was this government that decided to publicize that false
conclusion. As one might expect, the two commanders were vilified by a
nation at war.
Every succeeding investigation was clear in finding that there was no
dereliction of duty. The first of these were the 1944 Army Board and
Navy Court reviews. Again, it was government action that prevented a
truthful record from reaching the public--a decision by the President.
The findings of both of these bodies that placed blame on others than
Kimmel and Short were sequestered and classified.
Fifty-seven years later, such falsehoods and treatment can no longer
be justified by the necessities of war. Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel
and Major General Walter Short were not singularly to blame for the
disastrous events of Pearl Harbor in 1941. In fact, every investigation
of Admiral Kimmel and General Short's conduct highlights significant
failings by their superiors.
This amendment does not involve any costs, nor does it seek any
special honor or award for these two officers. It does not even seek to
exonerate them from all responsibility. Instead, it seeks simple
fairness and their equal treatment. They are the only two eligible
officers from World War II denied advancement on the retirement lists
to their highest held wartime ranks.
I know my colleague from Virginia is concerned that there may be a
long list of junior officers who can make similar claims. It is my
understanding that there was a list of officers from World War II
eligible for advancement under the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the only officers on that list
that were denied advancement on the retirement list.
I want to stress again for all my colleagues that this amendment
simply sets the record straight--responsibility for Pearl Harbor must
be broadly shared. It cannot be broadly shared if we fail to
acknowledge the government's historic role in clouding the truth, nor
if we continue to perpetuate the myth that Kimmel and Short bear
singular responsibility for the tragic losses at Pearl Harbor.
These two officers were unjustly stigmatized by our nation's failure
to treat them in the same manner with which we treated their peers. To
reverse this wrong would be consistent with this nation's sense of
military honor and basic fairness.
As we honor those who have given their lives to preserve American
ideals and national interests this coming Memorial Day, we must not
forget two brave officers whose true story remains shrouded and
singularly tarnished by official neglect of the truth.
We introduced this amendment as S.J. Res. 19 earlier this year and it
now has 23 co-sponsors. As I know Senator Roth indicated last night, it
has the support of numerous veterans organizations and retired Navy
flag officers. These knowledgeable people and about a quarter of the
Senate have already spoken up on behalf of justice and fairness.
I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us and support this
amendment.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I cannot accept the basic premise on which
the distinguished Senator from Delaware addresses his case; that is,
that there was a disposition among good and honest men not to accord
fairness, equity, and justice to these two individuals. They were the
subject of repeated inquiries. As a matter of fact, the Roberts
Commission was headed by a Supreme Court Justice. Throughout the whole
judicial history, in the common law of England, which we incorporated
in our judicial history, speedy trial is the essence of our justice.
The appellate procedure has to thereafter proceed with some expedition.
You cannot wait 50-some-plus years to address an issue such as this.
What do you say to the congressional committee? Do you dispute the
findings of this committee?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. We gave the names of some of the most revered elder
statesmen of this body who presided, such as Alben Barkley. And,
indeed, President Truman had to address, in 1947, as Senator Roth and I
covered last night, the tombstone promotions, which were given to
officers of this category, and deny them. Truman himself had to make
that decision. So I say to my good friend, many fair-minded individuals
have reviewed this case and have come up with the determination that
they were not the only ones who had culpability, but certainly, as I
read it, this commission of the Congress of the United States found a
serious basis for holding the action and making the decision that they
did.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield a minute?
Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator from Michigan needs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me just add to what the Senator from
Virginia just said in response to our good friend from Delaware. What I
really fear, perhaps the most, is the substitution of the judgment of a
political body for the judgment and findings of the appropriate chain
of command. We are a political body. The chain of command at the time,
which has been reviewed by the Defense Department, repeatedly made
findings and held these two officers accountable. For us now to
substitute our judgment more than five decades later for that of the
chain of command, it seems to me, is a very, very bad precedent in
terms of holding officers accountable for events.
Mr. President, the Department of Defense recently reviewed this
entire matter--the so-called Dorn report--and I have quoted these
findings before, but I will pick out two of them, which seems to me go
to the heart of the matter.
This is a quote:
To say that responsibility is broadly shared is not to
absolve Admiral Kimmel and General Short of accountability.
Of course, accountability should be broadly shared, and maybe it
wasn't as broadly shared as it should have been, but the issue is
whether or not this accountability, 57 years ago, is going to be set
aside by a political body 57 years later.
[[Page 10698]]
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. My time is over, but I will be happy to yield.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this is a rhetorical question. The report
suggested that Generals Marshall and Stark were also partially
responsible. My point is that the idea that the entirety of the blame,
that the children and the children of the children of these two men
will live forever thinking that they were the only two people
responsible for this, is a historical inaccuracy, unfair, and a blemish
that is not warranted to be carried by the two proud families whose
names are associated with them. It is as simple as that.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what we are talking about today is a matter
of justice and fairness, a matter that goes to the core of our military
tradition and our Nation's sense of military honor. Just let me point
out once again the Dorn report says:
Responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not
fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General
Short. It should be broadly shared.
Unfortunately, it was not broadly shared. The only two people who
were singled out for punishment, or not to be promoted to their wartime
rank, were Admiral Kimmel and General Short. They were held singularly
responsible for what happened in Pearl Harbor. That is not fair. That
is not just. Just let me point out that we have had the essence of the
tremendous number of endorsements we have received from senior retired
officers of the highest rank. Once again, I point out that admiral
after admiral--Burke, Zumwalt, Moorer and Crowe--have asked that this
be corrected. All we seek today is justice and fairness to two officers
who served their Nation with excellence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the admirals the Senator enumerated were
ones I had the pleasure of knowing, serving with several, and for whom
I have a great deal of respect. But I note the absence of any similar
number of Army generals coming forward on behalf of General Short.
Perhaps the Senator has something in the Record. But I think that
silence speaks to authenticate the position that this Senator and
others have taken.
To the very strong, forceful statement of my colleague who said it is
implicit that all responsibility for this tragedy is assigned to these
two individuals, that is not correct. The Dorn report said it is to be
shared. In fact, General Marshall stepped forward with courage and
accepted publicly, at the very time this was being examined, his share
of responsibility.
So I say others, indeed, General Marshall and others, stepped
forward.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. ROTH. May I just make a 15-second statement?
Mr. WARNER. The Chair has ordered the yeas and nays?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. I say, as a courtesy to my good friend and others who
have sponsored this, we will not, of course, move to table.
Mr. ROTH. I point out the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records, in 1991, recommended that General Short be restored to his
full wartime rank.
amendment no. 377
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question now is on
the Roberts amendment. There is an hour equally divided.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have had the privilege this year to
serve as the first chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. I would like to
recognize Senator Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
for his vision and foresight in creating this subcommittee to deal with
the nontraditional threats to U.S. national security.
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities was established
to provide oversight for the Department of Defense's efforts to counter
new and emerging challenges to vital United States interests. Through a
series of hearings and detailed oversight of budget accounts, the
subcommittee highlighted: the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction; terrorism directed at U.S. targets both at home and
abroad; information warfare and the protection of our defense
information infrastructure; and trafficking of illegal drugs. The
subcommittee sought to identify the technology, operational concepts
and capabilities we need to deter--and, if necessary--combat these
perils.
I would like to briefly highlight the initiatives included in this
bill to address the emerging threats to our national security:
Protection of our homeland and our critical information
infrastructure are two of the most serious challenges facing our Nation
today. In the area of counterterrorism, the bill before the Senate
includes full funding for the five Rapid Assessment and Initial
Detection (RAID) teams requested by the administration, and an increase
of $107 million to provide a total of 17 additional RAID teams in
fiscal year 2000. We have further required the Department to establish
a central transfer account for the Department's programs to combat
terrorism to provide better visibility and accounting for this
important effort.
We have included an Information Assurance Initiative to strengthen
the Department's critical information infrastructure, enhance oversight
and improve organizational structure. As a part of this initiative, we
added $120 million above the President's budget request for programs to
enhance our ability to combat cyber-attacks. In addition, this
initiative will provide for a test to plan and conduct simulations,
exercises and experiments against information warfare threats, and
allow the Department to interact with civil and commmercial
organizations in this important effort. The provision encourages the
Secretary of Defense to strike an appropriate balance in addressing
threats to the defense information infrastructure while at the same
time recognizing that Department of Defense has a role to play in
helping to protect critical infrastructure outside the DOD.
We have included a legislative package to strengthen the science and
technology program. This legislation will ensure that since the science
and technology program is threat-based and that investments are tied to
future warfighting needs. The legislation is also aimed at promoting
innovation in laboratories and improving the efficiency of RDT&E
operations. The bill also includes a $170 million increase to the
science and technology budget request.
And finally, in the area of nonproliferation, we have authorized over
$718 million for programs to assist Russia and other states of the
former Soviet Union destroy or control their weapons of mass
destruction. However, it is important to note, this is an increase of
$29.6 million over the fiscal year 1999 funding level. I would like to
take a moment to share my thoughts on this issue.
I am very concerned about the findings of the recently released GAO
report that the U.S. cost of funding the nuclear material storage
facility in Mayak, Russia has increased from an original estimate of
$275 million to $413 million. This Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
project may eventually
[[Page 10699]]
have a price tag of $1 billion. These increased costs to the U.S. have
occurred because Russia has failed to fund its share of the costs of
this project. I also understand that the chemical weapons destruction
facility will not be open until 2006, in part due to Russia's failure
to provide the needed information about the chemical weapons to be
destroyed.
The CTR program is becoming more and more one-sided. This program is
also in the interest of the Russians. Matter of fact, much of the
destruction of the Russian inventory, funded by the CTR program,
enables Russia to meet its obligations under existing arms control
treaties.
In addition, I am concerned with the daily press reports that the
Russians are enhancing their military capabilities. For example:
Earlier this month, President Yeltsin reportedly ordered the Russian
military to draw up plans for the development and use of tactical
nuclear forces.
On May 4, The Russian Defense Minister threatened to reconsider
Russian support for the revision of the Conventional Forces in Europe
(CFE) Treaty.
On April 16, the Duma unanimously adopted a resolution calling for
increased defense budgets.
Although I have serious concerns about this program, we included an
authorization for CTR at the budget request of $475.5 million, an
increase of $35 million over the FY 99 level. However, before FY 2000
funds may be obligated we require the President to recertify that the
Russians are foregoing any military modernization that exceeds
legitimate defense requirements and are complying with relevant arms
control agreements. The most recent certification by the Administration
was completed before these numerous statements by Yeltsi and other
Russian officials.
I am also concerned with the deficiencies in the management and
oversight of the DOE programs in Russia--in particular, the Initiative
for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiative
(NCI). If these programs are to succeed, we need to get past the
implementation problems pointed out in the GAO report, in press
reports, by our House colleagues, and by the Russians. In addition, the
Russian economic crisis and lack of infrastructure are making these
programs more difficult to manage. I am afraid if we do not exercise
strong oversight now we are in danger of losing these programs.
I have proposed a number of initiatives that I believe will go a long
way towards correcting the deficiencies in the management of the IPP
program, establishing a framework for effective implementation and
oversight of both programs, and ensuring that sufficient accountability
exists. Further, I believe the U.S. nonproliferation goals and U.S.
national security will be better served by these improvements.
Finally, I believe DoE should spend FY 2000 tightening up the
implementation of IPP and NCI rather than broadening the program.
Therefore, the committee authorized the IPP and NCI below the
administration's request of $30 million for each program. The bill
includes an authorization of $15 million for NCI and an authorization
of $25 million for IPP, an increase of $2.5 million for each program
over FY 99 levels. These are the only programs in the entire DoE
nonproliferation budget that the committee authorized below the budget
request. Overall, we authorized $266.8 million for DoE nonproliferation
programs in the former Soviet Union countries--an increase of $13.4
million over FY 99.
I believe the bill before you takes significant steps to focus the
Department of Defense's efforts to counter new and emerging threats to
vital national security interests. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Once again, Mr. President, I am asking the support of my colleagues
for a simple sense of the Senate that calls also for complete
transparency on the part of the President and Senate consideration
regarding the de facto editing of the original North Atlantic Treaty.
My sense of the Senate asks the President to certify whether the new
Strategic Concept of NATO, the one adopted at the 50th anniversary of
NATO in Washington about a month ago--this formalization of new and
complicated United States responsibilities in Europe, as evidenced by
the war in Kosovo and the possibility of future Kosovos around the
world--is in fact a document that obligates the United States in any
way, shape, or form.
If so, my sense of the Senate affirms that this body be given the
opportunity to debate, to accept or to reject, the new blueprint for
future NATO operations, these actions which will undoubtedly include
substantial components of our own Armed Forces engaged completely
outside the province of the original treaty.
Yesterday the distinguished Senator from Michigan, my colleague and
my friend, Senator Levin, asked where the Congress was in 1990, in
regard to the last Strategic Concept adoption. The Senator has rightly
pointed out there were changes made in the Concept at that particular
time. Without question, that should have been an alarm bell of things
to come. But there are key differences, I tell my friend, in the world
today as opposed to the world in 1990.
Second, and just as important, there are significant differences
regarding the Strategic Concept adopted in April of 1999, just a month
ago, which is the document that I hope is still on the desk of all
Senators, and the Concept that was adopted in 1990 as referenced by the
Senator.
First of all, Bosnia had not occurred and, more especially, Kosovo
was not the proof of the direction that NATO intended to go. That
direction is an offensive direction. That is not meant to be a pun.
The crafting of language in the new Strategic Concept was carefully
done. Look, my colleagues, if you will, at the removal of the following
wording of paragraph 35 of the 1991 Concept. I will repeat it:
The alliance is purely defensive in purpose. None of its
weapons will ever be used except in self defense.
That was removed. That removal was not an oversight. The current
Strategic Concept sets in motion a new NATO that is inconsistent with
article 1 of the 1990 treaty or concept. The North Atlantic Treaty,
article 1:
The parties undertake as set forth in the Charter of the
United Nations to settle any international dispute which they
may be involved in by peaceful means, in such a manner that
international peace and security and justice are not
endangered, and to refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent
with the purpose of the United Nations.
That was in 1990, the reference to the United Nations, to settle any
international dispute by peaceful means, not by military means.
The original wording and intent of article 4 of the North Atlantic
Treaty is straightforward. The North Atlantic Treaty, article 4:
The parties will consult together when in the opinion of
any of them the territorial integrity--
All the debate about whether we are conducting a military campaign
and crossing borders of a sovereign state, I say it again:
The parties will consult together when in the opinion of
any of them the territorial integrity or political
independence or the security of any of the parties is
threatened.
However, paragraph 24 of the new Concept significantly alters article
4 of the NATO treaty in the following way:
Arrangements exist within the alliance for consultation
among the allies under article 4 of the Washington Treaty--
My colleagues, pay attention to this--
and, where appropriate, the coordination of their efforts
including the responses to such risks.
The portion that includes ``the coordination of their efforts
including their responses to such risk,'' it is new, and strongly
suggests offensive action, i.e., Kosovo. It is a possible response to a
threat, and that is a radical shift for NATO--not from 1949 but also
from 1990.
The new Concept has significantly expanded the global coverage of
NATO. For example, paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 clearly indicate a global
reach for NATO.
[[Page 10700]]
Paragraph 20 states:
The resulting tensions could lead to crises affecting Euro-
Atlantic stability, to human suffering and to armed
conflicts. Such conflicts could affect the security of the
conference by spilling over to neighboring countries
including NATO countries or in other ways, and could also
affect the security of neighboring states.
The point is that NATO justifies action well beyond the original
boundaries of NATO and now includes threats to member states anywhere
in the world. Is that what we want the NATO of the future to be?
I say to my friend from Michigan, he is right that Congress was
asleep at the switch when the Strategic Concept of 1990 was adopted.
But there is no reason for Congress to remain asleep in 1999. In
fairness to my colleagues, no one envisioned that in less than 9 years
the purely defensive alliance of NATO would have conducted offensive
action out of area, against a sovereign nation, albeit a terribly
oppressive nation, in an action that was not in our vital national
interests.
Let me share some comments I have gleaned from the Foreign Media
Reaction Daily Digest which all Members receive from the U.S.
Information Agency. This is from the leading press around the world, as
they view, in terms of their commentary, what this Strategic Concept
means to them.
I know some critics, myself included, will say their views, some of
the views, are unimportant or biased or that they are from state-run
presses. I know that. But I think they are a valuable tool to
understand how we and NATO are being perceived by non-NATO members--and
some NATO members as well. Here is the summary--early May:
The Alliance's adoption of a ``new strategic concept''. . .
has swung to the negative [in regard to the comments by the
foreign press]. Criticism of the Alliance's vision of a ``new
world order''. . . . many underscored the problems with
NATO's expanded purview and questioned the feasibility of
trying to promote and impose--beyond European borders and
``by force if necessary''--a ``consistent'' standard on human
rights. The vast majority of media outside of Europe remained
harshly critical of NATO's [read the U.S.'s] new blueprint,
with most reiterating their concerns that NATO is
``transforming itself into a global police force, ignoring
the role of the U.N.'' . . . NATO is being enlarged--both
spatially and doctrinally--in order to ensure U.S. military
and political dominance over Europe, Russia and the rest of
the world.
I don't buy that, but it is important to understand that other
countries certainly think that.
It goes on to say:
The idea that a part of the world, formed by the most
``civilized'' nations, can be responsible for the respect of
human rights in the whole world--resorting, if necessary, to
the use of force . . . is neither viable nor fair.
They are asking:
. . . whether Kosovo is an exception or a rule in NATO's
new strategy, and whether the Allies will be equally firm,
but also consistent, when its comes to the Kurds . . .
Tibetans, Palestinians, Tutsis, Hutus [or] Native Americans.
Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya, Turkey, Colombia, Indonesia
show that NATO is now punishing randomly, that is only
enemies and only those countries that don't have any nuclear
weapons.
Mr. President, several headlines--and I do not agree with all of
these headlines--in May should be brought to the attention of my
colleagues.
The newspaper Reforma in Mexico:
What is the reason for the desire to impose a solution in
defense of the Albanians in Yugoslavia while at the same time
three ethnic groups that hate each other are forced to co-
exist in Bosnia? What could happen in Mexico in the future?
Within several months, NATO members [have now agreed] to
intervene anywhere they see fit without the need to consult
with the U.N. and to run the risk of a veto from Russia or
China. This will be a two century jump backwards.
That is from Mexico. I am not saying it speaks for the entire country
of Mexico, although President Zedillo said much the same thing.
Ethnos, a paper in Greece:
What occurred in Washington was the U.N.'s complete
weakening. It is now a mere onlooker of NATO's decisions and
initiatives. What has taken place is the complete overthrow
of the legal system.
A newspaper called Folha de S. Paulo in Brazil:
NATO celebrates its 50th anniversary and in practice
formalizes the end of the U.N. As it has become clear this
past month, the world's power is, in fact, in NATO, meaning
in the hands of the United States. And, almost no Government
dares to protest against it.
The Economist in Great Britain, a respected newspaper:
Limping home from Kosovo would certainly oblige NATO to
rethink its post-Cold War aims of intervention, not just for
member's defense, but also for broader interest in
humanitarian and international order. NATO might go into
terminal decline. The Alliance needs to persist in explaining
to other countries the principles that guided NATO's decision
to intervene in Kosovo. This necessity is not so much to
prove that this was a just cause but to reassure a suspicious
world that NATO has not given itself the right to attack
sovereign nations at whim.
Il Sole 24-Ore. of Italy:
We cannot say what emerged from the weird birthday-summit
war council in Washington is a strategic concept. Indeed,
NATO should have been more precise about its future. The war
in Kosovo forces us to revise international law as we have
known it.
This is from a newspaper in a country that is a NATO ally:
The concept suggests laying the foundation of an ``ethical
foreign policy.'' A democratic West which tolerates ethnic
and religious diversities, which is stable and economically
free, can even fight to give these values to other people. It
is a very nice picture, but to impose freedom is a
contradiction in terms.
Another headline: Al-Dustur in Jordan, the new King of which just
paid a visit to this country:
The Anglo-American alliance imposed on NATO during the
summit in Washington is a new orientation marked by
imperialist arrogance and disregard for the rest of the
world.
Those are pretty strong words.
This is a serious danger that faces the world, and to
overcome it all non-NATO countries should cooperate and seek
to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Is that what the new Strategic Concept is leading to in the minds of
some of the critics in foreign countries?
Al Watan in Kuwait, the country we freed in regard to Desert Storm:
NATO does not have a strategy for the next 50 years, except
America will remain the master, Europe the subordinate,
Russia a marginalized state and the rest of the world
secondary actors.
That is pretty tough criticism.
Asahi newspaper in Japan:
One such lesson is that members of an alliance often resort
to their own military activities, paying scant attention to
the trend of the U.N. Security Council, or international
opinion. Another lesson is that the United States, the only
superpower, often acts in accordance with its own logic or
interests rather than acting as supporter for its allies.
This newspaper sums it up:
This has relevance to the U.S.-Japanese military alliance.
The newspaper Hankyoreh Shinmun of South Korea, an ally:
The summit decision to give the Alliance an enlarged role
in the future is a dangerous one in that it may serve in the
long term to merely prop up America's hegemonic endeavors.
The talk of NATO's expanded role confuses everyone and even
threatens global peace. NATO's new role could unify countries
like Russia and China that oppose U.S. dominance, provoking a
new global conflagration between them and the West.
In Taiwan, The China Times:
NATO's new order requires different agents to act on the
U.S.'s behalf in different regions and to share the peace-
keeping responsibility for the peace of greater America. In
the Kosovo crisis, NATO on one hand tries to stop the
Yugoslav government's slaughter. On the other hand, to show
respect for Yugoslav sovereignty it also opposes Kosovar
independence. This means that a country cannot justify human
rights violations by claiming national sovereignty. By the
same token, calls for independence in a high tension area are
forbidden since they would naturally lead to war. These two
principles have now become the pillars of the NATO strategic
concept. Both sides of the Taiwan Strait have also repeatedly
received similar signals: Beijing should not use force
against Taiwan, and Taiwan should not declare independence.
There is a parallel.
Finally, in India, the newspaper Telegraph:
NATO will definitely try to make things difficult for
nations like India which are planning to join the nuclear
league. Though Russia, and now China, are seeking India's
cooperation and active participation to build a multi-polar
world order against the United States, Deli appears to be
reluctant to play. This reluctance stems from the fear that
the West, with help from Pakistan, might turn Kashmir into
another Kosovo, highlighting human rights violations in the
valley and Kashmir then might become a fit case for NATO
intervention.
[[Page 10701]]
I do not buy that. I do not think we are going to do that. Some of
the warnings, some of the descriptions that I have just read to my
colleagues, I do not buy, but it shows you the attitude, it shows you
how other people feel about the new Strategic Concept.
We have the same kind of commentaries from Argentina, from Canada,
from Mexico again.
La Jornada, a newspaper in Mexico:
The decision by NATO leaders to turn that organization from
a defensive into an offensive entity and to carry out
military actions regardless of the U.N. is a defeat of
civilized mechanisms that were so painfully put in place
after World War II. If the Alliance really wanted to impose
democratic values by force, it should start by attacking some
of its own members, like Turkey, which carries out systematic
ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Kurds.
Tough words.
My point remains that this new Strategic Concept, a concept that
radically alters the focus and direction of NATO, has been adopted
without the consultation of the Senate. Are we willing, as Senators, to
stand by and not debate, discuss, or give consent to a document that
fundamentally alters the most successful alliance in history? What we
discussed, what we ratified in regard to expansion is totally different
than the new Strategic Concept. It has had no debate, it has had no
discussion and, yet, it is a blueprint for our involvement in the
future of NATO.
It is a document that fundamentally alters the most successful
alliance in history and one that may cost the blood of our men and
women and billions of dollars from our Treasury. We should at least
debate it.
I urge my colleagues to support my sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I
reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be voting for this amendment because
it is worded very differently from earlier versions. This version of
the amendment simply requires the President to certify whether or not
the new Strategic Concept of NATO imposes any new commitment or
obligation on the United States.
In 1991, we had major changes in the alliance's Strategic Concept.
These were huge changes. Section 9 of the alliance's new Strategic
Concept in 1991, for instance, said:
Risks to allied security are less likely to result from
calculated aggression against the territory of the allies but
rather from the adverse consequences of instabilities that
may arise from serious economic, social and political
difficulties, including ethnic rivalries and territorial
disputes which are faced by many countries in Central and
Eastern Europe. They could lead to crises inimical to
European stability and even to armed conflicts which could
involve outside powers or spill over into NATO countries.
Then in paragraph 12, it says:
Alliance security must--
This is 1991--not this new one, but the Strategic Concept that was
adopted in 1991.
Alliance security must take into account the global
context. Alliance security interests can be affected by other
risks of a wider nature, including proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, disruption of the flow of vital
resources, and actions of terrorism and sabotage.
The reason that this 1991 Strategic Concept was not sent over to the
Senate for ratification was very straightforward, very simple, in my
judgment; and that is that the Strategic Concept then did not contain
new commitments or obligations for the United States. This is a
strategic concept; this is not a legally binding document. This is not
a treaty-specific document which contains obligations and commitments
on the part of the parties. This is a strategic concept document, both
in 1991 and in 1999.
So when my good friend from Kansas says that I said the Congress was
asleep in 1991, the Congress was not asleep in 1991. The Congress was
exactly right in 1991. When this Strategic Concept was adopted in 1991,
there were no new obligations or commitments that required the Senate
to ratify this document. And there are no new obligations or
commitments now.
The President has already told us that. He has already sent a letter
to Senator Warner. The President has sent a letter to Senator Warner
dated April 14, 1999, that says:
The Strategic Concept will not contain new commitments or
obligations for the United States.
So the certification, which is required in this amendment--and
rightfully so, by the way, in my judgment--has already been made. I see
no reason it would not be made again.
So I do not believe that the Congress was sleeping in 1991, and it
surely is not sleeping now. Senator Roberts is, as far as I am
concerned, very appropriately saying to the administration, if this
contains new commitments or obligations--if it contains new obligations
and commitments--then you should send this to us as a treaty amendment.
Of course, I happen to think that is correct. This amendment does not
find that there are new obligations and commitments. An earlier version
of this amendment, by the way, did. This amendment does not do that.
This amendment says to the President: Tell the Congress whether or not
the new Strategic Concept--those are the precise words of this
amendment--constitutes, involves, contains, new obligations or
commitments.
Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator points out that the letter was sent to me--
correct--in response to a letter that I forwarded to the President.
That is in last night's Record.
First, we welcome the Senator's support on this. But I think he would
agree with me that that letter was written at the time when the
language was still being worked, and of course it predates the final
language as adopted by the 50th anniversary summit. That language is
the object of this, I think, very credible inquiry by Mr. Roberts,
myself, and others.
Mr. LEVIN. It is very appropriate.
Mr. WARNER. It is very well that the Senate may forward a letter that
puts this matter to rest and, most importantly, clarifies in the minds
of our other allies, the other 18 nations, exactly what this document
is intended to say from the standpoint of America, which, I point out
time and time again, contributes 25 percent of the cost to the NATO
operations.
Mr. LEVIN. I think that is correct. The timing of the letter is
exactly as the chairman says it is. But the statement of the President
is that ``the Strategic Concept will not contain new commitments or
obligations for the United States.''
The caption of the amendment by the Senator from Kansas is ``Relating
to the legal effect of [this] new Strategic Concept.'' I think it is
quite clear from our conversations with the State Department that the
President can, indeed, and will, indeed, make this certification, and
should--and should. I think it is an important certification.
I commend the Senator from Kansas. I think we need clarity on this
subject. If there is a legally binding commitment on the United States
in this new Strategic Concept, it ought to be sent to the Senate for
ratification. But if this 1999 Strategic Concept is like the 1991
Strategic Concept--not a legally binding document but a planning
document, a document setting out concepts, not legal obligations--that
is a very different thing.
NATO has adopted strategic concepts continually during its existence.
By the way, again, let me suggest there is nothing much broader than
section 12 of the 1991 Strategic Concept which said: ``Alliance
security must take into account the global context.'' Does that
represent a binding commitment on the United States? It surely did not,
in my judgment, and need not have been submitted to the Senate for
ratification. I believe that the current Concept, which has been
adopted, does not contain legally binding commitments.
Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, the amendment, as carefully
crafted, does not have the word ``legal'' in it. It imposes any ``new
commitment.'' Indeed, there are political commitments that give rise to
actions from time to time. So I recognize the Senator's focus on
``legal,'' but it does not limit the certification solely to
[[Page 10702]]
legal. It embraces any new commitment or obligation of the United
States.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I think it clearly means the legal effect of
this. But let us, rather than arguing over what is in or not in this
amendment--I understand that there was going to be an effort made here
to clarify language on the certification. If there is going to be such
an effort, I would ask that be made now and that we then ask for the
yeas and nays so we are not shooting at a moving target here. Really, I
think it would be useful, if in fact that change relative to the
certification requirement is going to be sent to the desk, it be sent
to the desk at this point; and then I am going to ask for the yeas and
nays.
Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I do yield.
Amendment No. 377, As Modified
(Purpose: Relating to the legal effect of the new Strategic Concept of
NATO)
Mr. ROBERTS. I do have that clarification in the form of an
amendment, which I send to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that
in title X, at the end of subtitle D, that this amendment would be
added.
Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BIDEN. There is objection. I would like to reserve the right to
object, if you let me explain; otherwise, I will just simply object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I reserve the right to object because if, in fact, the
Senator wishes to change his amendment, I ask that we consider on line
7 adding the word ``legal,'' because failure to do so rewrites
constitutional history here. Presidents make commitments all the time.
Commitments and obligations do not a treaty make and do not require a
supermajority vote under the Constitution by the Senate to ratify those
commitments. I, at least for the time being, object and hope that after
we finish this debate, before we vote, my colleague and I can have a
few minutes in the well to see whether he will consider amending it to
add the word ``legal'' on line 7 of his amendment. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor in just 2 minutes. I
read this document quite clearly as meaning any new commitment or
obligation, because it uses the word ``impose.'' I know no other way to
impose an obligation or a commitment other than legal. When you use the
word ``impose,'' it seems to me it is quite clear that that means it is
imposed. So that is the way I read this language. If others want to
read the language in a different way, they may. But I think that the
certification requirement, which the Senator from Kansas wants to move
into the front of this amendment instead of in the sense-of-the-Senate
part of it, is simply a clarification of what was always the clear
intent, which is that there be such a certification. And I think that
that is more of a technical change than anything.
I have no objection to an amendment which moves the certification
requirement to the front of the amendment before the sense-of-the-
Senate language and imposes that as a certification requirement--not
sense of the Congress but as a requirement on the President. In my
judgment, there is no doubt but that it is only if there is a legally
binding commitment or obligation that this would require a referral to
the U.S. Senate, because no other requirement or obligation other than
one that is legally binding on us would rise to the dignity of a
treaty.
I hope the Senator will have a chance to move the certification
requirement to an earlier position in his amendment. If I could just
ask one question of my friend from Kansas, as I understand, that is
what the modification does provide and nothing more; is that correct?
Mr. ROBERTS. I say to the Senator, I am not sure. I had thought we
had an agreement that there would not be an objection to the amendment
by unanimous consent. That obviously is not the case. We are going to
have to consider this. Let us work on this.
I will be happy to visit here on the floor with the Senator from
Delaware and my good friend from Michigan. I am not entirely clear,
after listening to the Senator, that his description of this amendment
is the one that I have. Let us work it out, and if push comes to shove,
although I think it is entirely reasonable for a Senator to be allowed
to amend his own amendment, if this has caused some concern on the part
of both Senators, we can always bring this up as a separate amendment,
which may be the best case. If, in fact, you say ``legal,'' you put the
word ``legal'' in there, obviously I do not think the President is
going to have any obligation to report on anything. In terms of
obligation, if I might say so, if the Senator will continue to yield,
if Kosovo is not an obligation, I am not standing here on the floor of
the Senate. That is my response.
Why don't we visit about this if we can, and then, if necessary, we
will just introduce an amendment at a later time as a separate
amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield me 1
minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Just 1 minute and then afterwards I see others will seek
recognition to speak.
I want to make it clear, I do not know where the Senator got the
impression that there would be no objection. I did not agree to that.
What I suggested was that when he asked me whether or not I objected, I
asked him to withhold until after I made my talk and asked some
questions. Then I would not object. We are getting the ``cart before
the horse'' here. I want to make it clear, I may not ultimately object.
I just want to have an opportunity to speak to this before he sends his
amendment to the desk.
Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Smith of New Hampshire be added as an original cosponsor of Roberts
amendment No. 377.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
I thank the Senator from Kansas for pursuing this, because I do think
it is a very important amendment. I think it is very important that we
ask the President to come forward and tell us if this new Strategic
Concept we have all been reading imposes a new commitment or obligation
on the United States.
The original NATO treaty, the whole treaty, is very clear. It is a
defensive alliance. That has never been questioned until what is
happening today in Kosovo, which is clearly not defensive. It is
offensive. NATO has started airstrikes on a sovereign nation that is
not a member of NATO. So I think it is, before our eyes, evolving into
a new Strategic Concept for NATO, and I think we most certainly must
have the right to approve it. It is an addition to a treaty obligation
that was made 40-plus years ago.
Now, I am not necessarily against NATO having an offensive part of a
treaty obligation, but I am absolutely certain that the Senate must
approve this kind of added obligation and that we not walk away from
the very important concept that a treaty sets out certain obligations
and it is required to be ratified by Congress. And most certainly, we
must ratify the changing of a treaty obligation from a defensive
alliance to an offensive alliance.
There is no question that the founders of our country chose to make
it difficult to declare war. They chose to make it difficult to declare
war by giving the right to Congress. They could have given it to the
President, but they were going away from the English system, where the
King declared war and
[[Page 10703]]
implemented the same war. They wanted a division of responsibility, and
they wanted it to be difficult to put our troops in harm's way. Indeed,
every President we have had has said that it should be difficult to put
our troops in harm's way; perhaps until this President, that is.
So it is important that we pass this amendment and that the President
certify that we either do have a new obligation or we do not. I think
we do, and I think we need to debate it.
As I said, I am not against NATO having some offensive
responsibilities. I do question that they have in our NATO treaty the
right to do what they are doing right now. I think we need to debate
it, and I think we need to clarify exactly what would be in a new
offensive strategy that would be a part of a NATO treaty obligation of
the United States of America.
I can see a role for NATO that would declare that we have security
interests that are common and that we would be able to determine what
those common security interests are and that we would fight them
together, stronger than any of us could fight independently. I do not
know that Kosovo meets that test, but I think others certainly do
believe that. I do believe that a Desert Storm does meet the test or
Kim Jong-Il, with nuclear capabilities, does meet that test.
Mr. President, I support the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent
to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment. I think it is incumbent on
the Senate to stand up for our constitutional responsibility and that
is what this amendment does.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know if the Senator from Delaware would like to
speak at this moment.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. The distinguished Senator from Michigan indicated that I
could yield myself such time as he has remaining.
Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kansas, I have no objection,
after talking to him, if he wishes to send his amendment to the desk
now. I will yield the floor.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 377), as modified, is as follows:
In title X, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:
SEC. 1061. LEGAL EFFECT OF THE NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT OF NATO.
(a) Certification Required.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
determine and certify to the Senate whether or not the new
Strategic Concept of NATO imposes any new commitment or
obligation on the United States.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that, if the President certifies under subsection (a) that
the new Strategic Concept of NATO imposes any new commitment
or obligation on the United States, the President should
submit the new Strategic Concept of NATO to the Senate as a
treaty for the Senate's advice and consent to ratification
under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of
the United States.
(c) Report.--Together with the certification made under
subsection (a), the President shall submit to the Senate a
report containing an analysis of the potential threats facing
NATO in the first decade of the next millennium, with
particular reference to those threats facing a member nation,
or several member nations, where the commitment of NATO
forces will be ``out of area'' or beyond the borders of NATO
member nations.
(d) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``new Strategic Concept of NATO'' means the document approved
by the Heads of State and Government participating in the
meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., on
April 23 and 24, 1999.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that ``In title X
at the end of subtitle D'' be added to my original amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the things that we sometimes confuse
here--I know I do--is what is a political obligation and what is a
constitutional obligation. I respectfully suggest that there is no
constitutional requirement for the President of the United States--this
President or any future President--to submit to the Senate for
ratification, as if it were an amendment to a treaty, a Strategic
Concept that is a political document. We use the words interchangeably
on this floor. A new commitment or obligation, as I said, does not a
treaty make.
Our Strategic Concept has always been a political, not legal
document. Before last month's summit, NATO had revised the Strategic
Concept five times in the past and never once had required the Senate's
advice and consent. Doing so now would gravely undermine NATO's
alliance and our efforts, as well as being a significant overreach in
terms of our constitutional authority.
Let's not be fooled by the fact that the Roberts-Warner amendment
only expresses the sense of the Senate. My concern is that unless we
know exactly its dimension, it will be read in other NATO capitals as
much more than it is. Just as my friend from Kansas quoted from the
headlines and editorials of other newspapers--I might note that they
were not governments, but other newspapers--I point out that people in
other countries can misread actions taken by a country or group of
countries. My concern is that in NATO capitals our actions will be
misread.
The amendment sets out political criteria in point 1; and then in
point 2 transforms them into legally binding ones that would require
the Senate's advice and consent. This is a clever use of a non
sequitur.
NATO's Strategic Concept has always given political guidance to the
alliance's members. To that extent, this sixth revision of the
Strategic Concept imposes commitments. But contrary to the assertions
made by my distinguished friend from Kansas, it in no way changes the
fundamental purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949.
We should oppose this amendment for four reasons, but if we are not
going to oppose it now that it has been changed from its original
amendment, we should at least recognize four important points:
One, to suggest that--if it were to be suggested--the Strategic
Concept should be treated as an amendment to the treaty would set a
terrible precedent and send a horrible signal at a time when we are
striving to maintain alliance unity.
It would signal our NATO allies that the United States will not
implement the new Strategic Concept without formal Senate advice and
consent.
If we pass this amendment, couldn't the British, French, or Germans
say tomorrow that they are going to disregard NATO's operating
procedures? Couldn't they say tomorrow that they are no longer going to
be bound by their commitment to beef up their military capacity as they
committed to in 1991?
Given that NATO's decisions require unanimity, and that all 19 NATO
member parliaments might then assert that they would have to ratify
each and every future change in an operating procedure, we would be
building in chaos to the alliance. How could we operate under those
circumstances?
The second point I want to make is that we should remember that there
have been many other changes in the Strategic Concept, as my friend
from Michigan has pointed out, and they were never considered the
equivalent of a new international treaty.
As I mentioned, before this year, NATO's original 1949 Strategic
Concept had been revised five other times. Included among those were
three fundamental transformations.
In 1957, the alliance adopted a new strategy, which would have
shocked my friend from Kansas. It was called Massive Retaliation. Talk
about a commitment--a commitment that was,
[[Page 10704]]
I might add, totally consistent with the provisions of the treaty. It
was an operating procedure.
In 1967, NATO abandoned the doctrine of Massive Retaliation in favor
of the doctrine of Flexible Response. And then, in 1991, to continue to
make the treaty relevant operationally, NATO recognized that after the
end of the Soviet threat, NATO would nonetheless be confronted by a
series of new threats to the alliance's security, such as ethnic
rivalries and territorial disputes. It altered the Strategic Concept
accordingly.
These were dramatic changes to alliance strategy, yet not once did
the Senate, notwithstanding the fact it was not asleep, believe it had
to provide its advice and consent.
There was a great deal of discussion about the 1991 Strategic
Concept. I participated in it, others participated in it, and it
revolved around what was the purpose of NATO and how we were
operationally going to function now that the worry was no longer having
50 Soviet divisions coming through the Fulda Gap in Germany--a
recognition that the territorial integrity of member states was still
threatened, and instead of Soviet divisions rolling through the Fulda
Gap with Warsaw Pact allies, there was a different threat, nonetheless
real, nonetheless warranting this mutual commitment made to defend the
territorial integrity of member states.
We discussed it. We debated it. There were those who thought it
didn't go far enough. There are those who thought it went too far. But
it wasn't that we were asleep and didn't pay attention. In fact, maybe
it was because--and I am not being facetious--my friend was in the
House where they don't deal with treaties, where it is not their
constitutional obligation, and where foreign policy is not the thing
they spend the bulk of their time on. But we weren't asleep over here.
In fact, the current 1999 version of the Strategic Concept is much more
similar to its 1991 predecessor than the 1991 document was to any of
its predecessors.
My third point is simple. The revised Strategic Concept does not
require advice and consent because it is not a treaty.
The rules under U.S. law on what constitutes a binding international
agreement are set forth in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of
the United States, as well as in the State Department regulations
implementing the Case-Zablocki Act.
Under the Restatement, the key criterion as to whether an
international agreement is legally binding is if the parties intend
that it be legally binding and governed by international law.
(Restatement, Sec. 301(1)).
Similarly, the State Department regulations state that the ``parties
must intend their undertaking to be legally binding and not merely of
political or personal effect.'' (22 Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 181.2(a)(1)).
Thus, many agreements that are not binding are essentially political
statements. There is a moral and political obligation to comply in such
cases, but not a legal one.
The most well-known example of such a political statement is the
Helsinki Final Act of 1975, negotiated under the Ford administration
and credited by most of us as the beginning of the end of the Soviet
Union, the most significant political act that began to tear the Berlin
Wall down. That was a political statement--commitments we made, but not
of treaty scope requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.
The second key criterion is whether an international agreement
contains language that clearly and specifically describe the
obligations that are to be undertaken.
An international agreement must have objective criteria for
determining the enforceability of the agreement. (22 C.F.R.
Sec. 181.2(a)(3)).
Another criterion is the form of the agreement. That is, a formal
document labeled ``Agreement'' with final clauses about the procedures
for entry into force is probably a binding agreement. This is not a
central requirement, but it does provide another indication that an
agreement is binding. (22 C.F.R. Sec. 181.2(a)(5)).
A reading of the Strategic Concept clearly indicates that it is not a
binding instrument of which treaties are made.
Rather, the Strategic Concept is merely a political statement with
which my colleague from Kansas and others disagree. I respect that. I
respect their disagreement with the political commitment that was made.
But their political disagreement with a political commitment does not
cause it to rise to the level of a binding treaty obligation requiring
the advice and consent of the Senate, no matter how important each of
them may be, no matter how relevant their objectives may be, no matter
how enlightened their foreign policy may be.
Rather, the Strategic Concept is merely a political statement that
outlines NATO's military and political strategy for carrying out the
obligations of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Nowhere in the Strategic Concept can you find binding obligations
upon the members of NATO.
For, if that were the case, all of our European allies as of a year
ago, with the exception of Great Britain, would have been in violation
of their treaty obligations--would have been in violation of their
treaty obligations because of the commitments they made to build up--I
will not bore the Senate with the details--their military capacity. Yet
no one here on the floor has risen to suggest over the past several
years, even though we have decried their failure to meet their
obligations, that they have violated their treaty obligations.
Instead, the language of the Strategic Concept contains general
statements about how NATO will carry out its mission.
The most important question, as I stated, is the intent of the
parties. As the President wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services on April 14, ``the Strategic Concept will not contain
new commitments or obligations for the United States.''
Of course, the Strategic Concept creates a political commitment. And
we take our political commitments seriously.
All member states, the United States included, assume political
obligations when they take part in the alliance's integrated military
planning.
That is what target force goals are all about. And, Mr. President,
that lies at the heart of burden-sharing, whose importance several of
us continually stress to our NATO allies.
The 1999 Strategic Concept creates a planning framework for NATO to
act collectively to meet new threats if they arise.
So I would summarize the key point in this way: the Strategic Concept
imposes political obligations to create military capabilities, but it
does not impose legal obligations to use those capabilities.
My fourth point is that I understand the concern that NATO's core
mission--alliance defense--not be altered. It has not been.
Our negotiators at last month's NATO summit did exactly what the vast
majority of Senators wanted.
They consciously incorporated the Senate's concerns that NATO remain
a defensive alliance when they negotiated the revised Strategic
Concept.
The revised Strategic Concept duplicates much of the language
contained in the Kyl amendment to the Resolution of Ratification on
NATO Enlargement.
You all remember the Kyl amendment. We were not asleep at the switch.
We were not failing to pay attention. We debated at length--my friend
from Virginia, and I, and others--NATO enlargement. It is one of the
few areas on which we have disagreed.
We debated at length the Kyl amendment. Let me remind my colleagues
that the amendment was adopted by the Senate in April of 1998 by a 90-9
vote.
Rather than reviewing the specifics of the document, because time
does not permit, nor do I think memories have to be refreshed that
clearly, because everyone remembers, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to enter into the Record a document provided by
[[Page 10705]]
the Clinton administration that reviews paragraph by paragraph the
similarities between the Kyl amendment and the 1999 Strategic Concept.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Kyl Amendment and the Strategic Concept of NATO
(Document drafted for Assistant Secretary of the State Marc Grossman on
April 29, 1999 and handed out by Secretary Grossman to Members of the
Senate on May 5, 1999)
Assistant Secretary for European Affairs Marc Grossman in
SFRC testimony on April 21: ``During the NATO enlargement
debate some 90 Senators led by Senator Kyl passed an
amendment laying out clear criteria for NATO's updated
Strategic Concept. We heard your message and made the
criteria established by Senator Kyl our own.''
Language from the Kyl Amendment: ``The Senate understands
that the policy of the United States is that the core
concepts contained in the 1991 Strategic Concept of NATO,
which adapted NATO's strategy to the post-Cold War
environment, remain valid today, and that the upcoming
revision of that document will reflect the following
principles:''
I. First and foremost, a military Alliance
Strategic Concept Paragraph 6: ``. . . safeguard freedom
and security . . . by political and military means.''
SC Para 25: ``. . . a broad approach to security which
recognizes the importance of political, economic, social and
environmental factors in addition to the indispensable
defense dimension.''
II. Principal foundation for defense of security interests
SC Para 4: ``. . . must safeguard common security interests
in an environment of further, often unpredictable change.''
SC Para 8: ``. . . the Alliance enables them through
collective effort to realize their essential national
security objectives.''
SC Para 25: ``NATO remains the essential forum for
consultation . . . and agreement on policies bearing on
security and defense commitments . . .''
III. Strong U.S. leadership promotes/protects U.S. vital security
interests
SC Para 27: ``. . . a strong and dynamic partnership
between Europe and North America . . .''
IV. U.S. leadership role through stationing forces in Europe, key
commanders
SC Para 42: ``presence of US conventional and nuclear
forces in Europe remains vital . . .''
SC Para 62: ``. . . supreme guarantee of the security of
Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the
Alliance, particularly those of U.S.''
V. Common threats
a. potential re-emergence of hegemonic power.
SC Para 20: ``. . . large-scale conventional threat is
highly unlikely, but the possibility of such a threat
emerging exists.''
b. rogue states and non-state actors with WMD.
SC Para 22: ``. . . can pose a direct military threat to
Allies' populations, territory, and forces.''
c. wider nature, including disruption of flow of vital
resources, other transnational threats.
SC Para 24: ``. . . of a wider nature, including acts of
terrorism, sabotage and organised crime, and by the
disruption of the flow of vital resources.''
d. conflict stemming from ethnic and religious enmity,
historic disputes, undemocratic leaders.
SC Para 20: ``Ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial
disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse
of human rights, and the dissolution of states . . .''
vi. core mission is collective defense
SC Para 27: ``. . . Alliance's commitment to the
indispensable transatlantic link and the collective defense
of its members is fundamental to its credibility and to the
security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area.''
SC Para 28: ``The maintenance of an adequate military
capability and clear preparedness to act collectively in the
common defense remain central to the Alliance's security
objectives.''
vii. capacity to respond to common threats
SC Para 52: ``The size, readiness, availability and
deployment of the Alliances military forces will reflect its
commitment to collective defense and to conduct crisis
response operations, sometimes at short notice, distance from
home stations . . .''
SC Para 52: ``They must be interoperable and . . . must be
held at the required readiness and deployability, and be
capable of . . . complex joint and combined operations, which
may also include Partners and other non-NATO nations.''
viii. integrated military structure: cooperative defense planning
SC Para 43: ``. . . practical arrangements . . . based on .
. . an integrated military structure . . . include collective
force planning, common funding, common operational planning .
. .''
ix. nuclear posture: an essential contribution to deter aggression;
U.S. nuclear forces in europe; essential link between europe and north
america ensure uncertainty in mind of aggressor
SC Para 42: ``presence of U.S. conventional and nuclear
forces in Europe remains vital to the security of Europe,
which is inseparably linked to that of North America.''
SC Para 46: ``. . . remain essential to preserve peace.''
SC Para 62: ``. . . fulfill an essential role by ensuring
uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor . . .''
x. burdensharing: shared responsibility for financing and defending
SC Para 30: ``. . . Allies have taken decisions to enable
them to assume greater responsibilities . . .;'' will enable
all European Allies to make a more coherent and effective
contribution to the missions . . . of the Alliance;'' ``. . .
will assist the European Allies to act by themselves as
required.''
SC Para 42: ``The achievement of Alliance's aims depends
critically on the equitable sharing of the roles, risks and
responsibilities . . . of common defense.''
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me also remind my colleagues that
NATO's decisions require unanimity. I know we all know that. We got
that unanimity at a recent Washington summit after long and tough
negotiations.
By appearing to withhold U.S. support for the revised Strategic
Concept--and perhaps eventually even blocking its implementation--this
amendment, if misread, would put the alliance in great jeopardy.
And that could lead to the collapse of NATO, which I am sure is not
the goal of my colleague from Kansas.
One final comment. I know that my friend from Kansas is strongly
opposed to the conduct of the current war in Yugoslavia, and, while
disagreeing with him, I respect his views.
But, I would remind him and the rest of my colleagues that the 1999
revision of the Strategic Concept is neither the justification for, nor
the driving force behind, NATO's bombing campaign or actions in Kosovo.
NATO's bombing campaign began a full month before the newest revision
of the Strategic Concept was approved at the Washington Summit.
To sum up, there are no compelling political or legal arguments for
the Roberts amendment. in terms of making this concept subject to
treaty amendment.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment.
I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire of the distinguished
acting Presiding Officer how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, be added as an original cosponsor of the Roberts
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
Colorado, my friend and colleague, 3 minutes of the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Kansas for yielding.
I ask unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor of the Roberts
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Doug Flanders
of my staff have floor privileges during the entire debate on the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Roberts
amendment. The reason I do that is I think that the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, which we refer to as NATO in this debate, is
suffering from mission creep. I look at what has happened with the
Strategic Concept in 1991. I look at the passing of the 1999 new
Strategic Concept, and I think it becomes clear how mission creep is
moving in.
[[Page 10706]]
In 1991, NATO established a new Strategic Concept which altered the
concept dramatically from the original treaty. It allowed for more
flexibility in the ability to get into a wide range of military
operations. However, I add that it did maintain in part 4, under
Guidelines for Defense, entitled ``Principle of Alliance Strategy''--I
want to quote specifically from that Strategic Concept.
The alliance strategy will continue to reflect a number of
fundamental principles. The alliance--
And this is underlined--
The alliance is purely defensive in purpose. None of its
weapons will ever be used except in self defense. And it does
not consider itself to be anyone's adversary.
Then, if we look at the 1999 new Strategic Concept, it still says
that their core purpose is the collective defense of NATO members. It
adds that NATO:
. . . should contribute to peace and stability in the
region.
But, while a lot of the debate here on the floor has been about what
does the Concept say, the important point I want to make here is what
is important is what it does not say. In the 1999 new Strategic
Concept, there is no mention that the alliance will never use its
weapons except in self-defense. So, in 1991 the new Strategic Concept
said the alliance was purely defensive in purpose. In 1999, there is no
mention that the alliance will never use its weapons other than in
self-defense.
I think that is a real important distinction. That is why I think it
is so important we have a debate on the mission of NATO.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Kansas for
this amendment. I know there are additional speakers--on this side, at
least--who desire to speak on it, so I ask unanimous consent both sides
have an additional 8 minutes to speak on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will my colleague yield 3 minutes?
Mr. ROBERTS. I am delighted to yield my distinguished colleague and
friend 3 minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for this amendment. I
think this is a very important amendment. I wish we would debate it at
much greater length, because I am afraid, from some of the things I
have read, from comments made by the President of the United States,
that he is expanding NATO's role, commitment, obligation, frankly, far
beyond the treaty we have signed, which has been so successful, the
50th anniversary of which we commemorated this year.
I look at the President's statement he made on May 27, 1997. He did
this in concert with French President Chirac and Russian President
Yeltsin in France. He stated:
In turn, we are building a new NATO. It will remain the
strongest alliance in history, with smaller, more flexible
forces, prepared to provide for our defense, but also trained
for peacekeeping.
He goes on, and I will just read the last sentence:
It will be an alliance directed no longer against a hostile
bloc of nations, but instead designed to advance the security
of every democracy in Europe--NATO's old members, new
members, and non-members alike.
A couple of days later he made a speech at the United States Military
Academy, a commencement speech at West Point, May 31, 1997:
To build and secure a new Europe, peaceful, democratic and
undivided at last, there must be a new NATO, with new
missions, new members and new partners. We have been building
that kind of NATO for the last three years with new partners
in the Partnership for Peace and NATO's first out-of-area
mission in Bosnia. In Paris last week, we took another giant
stride forward when Russia entered a new partnership with
NATO, choosing cooperation over confrontation, as both sides
affirmed that the world is different now. European security
is no longer a zero-sum contest between Russia and NATO; but
a cherished, common goal.
Clearly, President Clinton is trying to redefine NATO's mission far
beyond a defensive alliance, as our colleague from Kansas pointed out.
The purpose in the charter of NATO under article 5 was a defensive
alliance. Now he is expanding it to include nonmembers. He is including
out-of-area conflicts. He includes ethnic conflicts or trying to
resolve ethnic conflicts. I think, clearly, if he is going to do so, he
needs to rewrite the NATO charter and submit that as a treaty to the
Senate for its ratification.
So I compliment my colleague for this amendment. I think it is one of
the most important amendments we will consider on this bill. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the Roberts amendment, and I thank him
for his leadership.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 7 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Sessions be added as an original cosponsor of the Roberts amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the distinguished Senator 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for
bringing forward a very critical amendment. I spent 17 years as a U.S.
attorney or assistant U.S. attorney, representing the United States in
court. I am looking at the legal implications of this amendment as a
lawyer for the United States.
What we are doing here is very, very historic. This Congress has
ratified a defensive treaty. We are moving into a new world. We are
looking at an entirely different approach to life, and the President is
unilaterally expanding the commitments of this Nation under the guise
of a new NATO that is involved in new missions, as the Senator from
Oklahoma has just noted; committing us solemnly with the same depth of
commitment that we put our lives, our fortunes, and our honor to
preserve the integrity of democracy against totalitarian communism for
all of these years.
That is what is being asked here. To have that done without full
debate and full approval of this Congress is astounding and would
represent a major legal erosion of the powers of the Senate and the
Congress, particularly the Senate, to review these matters. So I cannot
express too strongly how important it is this Senate reassert its
historic responsibility to advise and consent to involvement in these
kind of foreign policies.
Once the President commits us, we pay for it. Right now this action
in Kosovo amounts to 19 NATO nations meeting and deciding how to deploy
the U.S. Air Force. We are paying for this war in their own backyard,
and they are voting on how to conduct it. We simply have to get a
better grip on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague whether I could have 10 seconds to
have some fellows granted the privilege of the floor? They have been
waiting outside. May I do that without taking anybody's time?
Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ben
Highton, Rachel Gragg, John Bradshaw, and Michelle Vidovic, who are
fellows, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the
consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Delaware, the
Senator from Alabama, and others have been talking about the legal
ramifications of what this amendment is all about. You can study the
sections and subsections and sub-subsections and quote all of these
things, but I think we all know this was an alliance that was set up to
be a defensive alliance. Now we are getting into something that is far
more than that.
But I would put out two things that have not been said. First of all,
I just
[[Page 10707]]
came back from the Canada-United States interparliamentarian meeting up
there. It is very clear to me they are involved in this, with a very
modest contribution, only because we are in there. I wonder how many
other of these countries are getting involved because we are providing
that leadership.
No. 2, my concern about this is not a legalistic concern. It is what
effect is this having on our state of readiness. I happen to be
chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. This is what is very
frightening. We can remember in this Chamber in 1994, in 1995, talking
about Bosnia; we were going to be sending people over to Bosnia. What
was the main argument used? We have to protect the integrity of NATO.
Then we have the same thing coming up on Kosovo. It has come up in
other places, too.
These are areas where we do not have national strategic interests.
What it has done is to put us in a position where we cannot carry out
the minimum expectations of the American people or our national
military strategy, which is to defend America on two fronts.
I want to tell you how proud I was of General Hawley the other day,
Air Combat Command, who came out and said we, right now, are not in a
position to respond if we should be called upon to respond in areas
where we do have a national strategic interest such as North Korea or
the Persian Gulf.
It is very, very important that we get to the bottom of this and we
make a determination as to what our future commitments are going to be
as far as NATO is concerned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe this debate is taking on
excellent participation. I think we can allocate another 10 minutes to
both sides--10 minutes under the control of the Senator from Kansas and
10 minutes under the control of my distinguished colleague from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not plan to
object, I wonder if the Chair can inform us as to how much time is
remaining on both sides under the previous extension.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Almost 3 minutes on this side and 8 minutes on
the side of the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I want to protect the rights of the Senator from Minnesota
who has been waiting.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, this is an
important debate. I agree with both of the managers. We should go on
with the debate. I ask the question whether or not I may bring this
amendment up after the caucuses or speak for a while but then have some
time later.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I can address that and make a suggestion.
On this side, we are prepared to accept the third amendment. I suggest
perhaps at the hour of 12:25, the distinguished ranking member and I
and Mr. Wellstone can address the three amendments and conclude them
before the caucus. Will that be convenient?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I thank him for two of the
amendments. I am committed to having a rollcall vote on the welfare
tracking amendment, so that would not work out for me. I am pleased to
go on with this debate, and I will come back later.
Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is the first time we have known of
the Senator's desire to have a rollcall vote on the third amendment. We
are prepared to accept it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Virginia, I
appreciate working with him on the other amendments. I have been down
this path before with voice votes and then it is out in conference. I
am committed to having a debate and vote on this. I am sorry my
colleague is surprised by this. I am more than willing to wait. I think
this debate is very important. I will come back later and do this.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want the opportunity to consult with the
chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the third amendment and with the majority leader and presumably the
minority leader, and set a time for the rollcall vote, which the
Senator is entitled to have. For the moment, we are prepared to accept
the two amendments and then allow the debate----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time is set for
the Wellstone amendment.
Mr. WARNER. On the two amendments from Senator Wellstone.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the chairman will yield, may I make a
suggestion that after we conclude the debate on the pending amendment,
we immediately proceed to the first of the two Wellstone amendments,
accept those before lunch, and then determine at that time whether to
conclude the debate on the third. In any event, the rollcall vote on
the third amendment will have to come after lunch under the existing
unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, basically how much additional
time to the time we have left has the Senator asked for? I am not sure
there are any more Members who want to speak on the minority side. I
can wrap up in 5 minutes or less. I am adding cosponsors every minute,
so I am happy to stay here for a while.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the purpose of the party caucuses, we
hope to complete all debate on the underlying amendment circa 12:30,
which is roughly a half hour. I wish to speak a few more minutes on the
amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, as does the ranking
member.
My suggestion is, if possible, while Senator Wellstone is on the
floor, do the voice voting of his two amendments, reserving, of course,
scheduling the third, and then we can continue with this debate. It
will not take but a minute on the two voice votes on the two Wellstone
amendments.
Mr. ROBERTS. I have no problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. We have not put it in the form of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I apologize. I was in a discussion with
the staff on the majority side. What are we talking about here?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the suggestion was we immediately take up
the two Wellstone amendments that we are going to voice vote, then go
back to the Roberts amendment, and then come back to the third
amendment afterwards.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That will be fine with me.
Amendment No. 381, As Modified
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first, on amendment No. 381, I send a
modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 83, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
SEC. 329. PROVISION OF INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE TO THE PUBLIC
REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT U.S.
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS FORMERLY OPERATED BY THE
UNITED STATES THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED.
(a)(1) Requirement To Provide Information and Guidance.--
The Secretary of Defense shall publicly disclose existing,
available information relevant to a foreign nation's
determination of the nature and extent of environmental
contamination, if any, at a site in that foreign nation where
the United States operated a military base, installation, and
facility that has been closed as of the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Congressional list.--Not later than September 30, 2000,
the Secretary of Defense shall provide Congress a list of
information made public pursuant to paragraph (1).
(b) Limitation.--The requirement to provide information and
guidance under subsection (a) may not be construed to
establish on the part of the United States any liability or
obligation for the costs of environmental restoration or
remediation at any site referred to in subsection (a).
(c) National Security.--Information the Secretary of
Defense believes could adversely affect U.S. National
Security shall not be released pursuant to this provision.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take a very brief period of time
on each amendment. Basically what this amendment says is:
The Secretary of Defense shall publicly disclose existing,
available information relative to a foreign nation's
determination of
[[Page 10708]]
the nature and extent of environmental contamination, if any,
at a site in that foreign nation where the United States
operated a military base, installation, and facility that has
been closed as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
I thank both colleagues, and I really hope these amendments will be
supported in conference committee.
To make a long story short, when we leave a country, close our base,
quite often what happens is that there is some environmental
contamination. We want to make sure those countries have access to
information as to the extent of what chemicals or substances are there
which might pose a danger to their citizens.
It is a very reasonable amendment. It is important for our foreign
relations with these countries. I believe it has strong bipartisan
support. I thank Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their support and
make the request--I think both Senators will do this--that this be kept
in conference committee. That is why I do not need a recorded vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. May I seek clarification of our colleague from Minnesota,
on his third amendment: What number does he designate this being? He
just mentioned he wanted to send an amendment--
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought we were going to do two amendments right
now: One is on environmental impact when we close bases, and the second
amendment is on atomic vets, both of which the Senator is prepared to
accept.
Mr. WARNER. Correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. The third amendment, No. 382, deals with tracking,
reporting on what is actually happening in the country right now with
welfare reform.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am familiar with that, and the Senator
first wishes to amend the text of No. 382?
Mr. WELLSTONE. No; I just did--
Mr. WARNER. You just did it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I modified amendment No. 381.
Mr. WARNER. Addressing No. 382, what amount of time will the Senator
require for debate on No. 382?
Mr. WELLSTONE. The UC provides for an hour equally divided.
Mr. WARNER. And does the Senator wish to adhere to that previous
order?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, yes, I have been trying to get
this amendment on the floor for some time. I am talking to a good
friend, my friend from Virginia, as I make my case. I believe my friend
from Virginia will agree that this is well worth the focus on the part
of the Senate.
Mr. WARNER. I am only addressing procedure.
Mr. WELLSTONE. One hour equally divided is the UC.
Mr. WARNER. We would like to complete that amendment by 1 o'clock.
Will the Senator reduce his amount of time? In all likelihood, we will
yield back the half hour reserved for us, because there is not likely
to be any opposition.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am delighted if there is not any
opposition. If the Senator is going to yield back his time, clearly--I
do need to go to the caucus, but I would rather not yield back time. I
will try to shorten my presentation. If there is not a response, so be
it; we will get a strong vote.
Mr. WARNER. For the convenience of the Senate, does the Senator think
he can give us any estimate as to how he can shorten it from a half
hour down to, say, 10 or 12 minutes?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to shorten this
amendment to 10 or 12 minutes in any way, shape or form, because it is
too important to have a chance to talk about what is happening to these
women and children and make sure that we track what is happening.
Mr. WARNER. I am just seeking to try to accommodate the Senate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. We should stay with the UC agreement.
Mr. WARNER. Beg your pardon?
I have to address the Chair. There is a UC requirement of the
expenditure of that time prior to the normal weekly recess today at
12:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is.
Mr. WARNER. This is the dilemma that the Senator from Virginia, the
manager of the bill has, in that, as drawn, the UC of last night
requires it to be completed prior to 12:30. So now let's figure out how
we accommodate the Senate. Perhaps we can move your amendment to some
point this afternoon, that is, amendment No. 3, when the Senator could
avail himself of the full 30 minutes, if he so desires.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be more than willing --if
several of my colleagues want to speak on the very important amendment
that Senator Roberts has offered, I would be willing to bring my
amendment up right after the caucuses and go to it right then.
Mr. WARNER. If I may say, Mr. President, right after our caucuses are
votes on other amendments, including Senator Roberts' amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. After we have those votes then I would bring the
amendment up.
Mr. WARNER. I will need to check other commitments we made with
regard to time. I will work on it and come back in a minute or two and
clarify this.
In the meantime, if we can proceed with the Roberts amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 377, As Modified
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I inquire, after all that, how much time
do we have remaining on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes on the Senator's side; 8 minutes
on the other side.
Mr. ROBERTS. But was there a request by unanimous consent that either
party wanted some additional time? The minority has 8 minutes
remaining; is that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. ROBERTS. Does the chairman want to speak on this? Is that
correct? You wish to speak on the Roberts amendment?
Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct, for about 3 minutes, in support.
Mr. ROBERTS. I can get my remarks done in 5, so I ask unanimous
consent that we add 8 minutes, along with the other 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Bingaman of New Mexico be added as a cosponsor of the Roberts
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the distinguished chairman--what was the
request, Mr. Chairman, 3 minutes, 5 minutes?
Mr. WARNER. I would suggest that we try to conclude the Roberts
amendment in 5 or 10 minutes. Then we will proceed to the Wellstone
amendment, and then we can adhere to the time agreements.
Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the distinguished chairman, how much time would
the distinguished chairman like?
Mr. WARNER. Just 2 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the distinguished Senator 2 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to address the document that was
submitted to the Senate by the Senator from Delaware entitled: The Kyl
Amendment and the Strategic Concept of NATO. I went back and asked the
Senator from Delaware to clarify the date, time, group, and when it was
prepared and submitted to the Senate. He is doing that.
But I just wish to draw the attention to the Senate, as I read this
document--and I have seen it before--it simply refers to those portions
in the Kyl amendment that were incorporated into the final draft of the
Strategic Concept. But it does not, on its face, nor do I believe it
was intended to, say that it covered everything by the new Strategic
Concept.
Indeed, I agree with the Senator from Kansas this document in no way
is intended to represent that it encompasses all of the new Strategic
Concept. The Senator from Kansas is quite
[[Page 10709]]
properly pointing out there are those of us--the Senator from Kansas,
myself, and others--who feel the Strategic Concept went beyond the Kyl
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Might I inquire of my distinguished friend from Michigan
if he, the minority, seeks any additional time?
Mr. LEVIN. We are just using about 3 of our 8 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I would be happy if the Senator would like to proceed at
this time. I would like to close, if that is all right.
Mr. LEVIN. Sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this amendment for the reasons
previously given. It does not reach any conclusion as to whether there
are any additional obligations upon the United States. Unlike earlier
versions, it simply asks the President to certify whether or not there
are additional obligations imposed on the United States.
I have read from what was called then the new Strategic Concept of
NATO in 1991. At the heading of that Concept, it was stated that:
The alliance recognizes that developments taking place in
Europe would have a far-reaching impact on the way in which
its aims would be met in the future.
And, indeed, adopted language such as:
Alliance security must also take into account the global
context. Alliance security interests can be affected by other
risks of a wider nature, including proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, disruption of flow of vital resources,
actions of terrorism and sabotage.
That did not impose any new obligations. It is very broad language.
Listen to some of this language in this 1991 alliance new Strategic
Concept:
The primary role of the alliance military forces to
guarantee security and territorial integrity of member states
remains unchanged [we said in 1991]. But this role must take
account of the new strategic environment in which a single
massive and global threat has given way to diverse and
multidirectional risks. Allied forces have different
functions to perform in peace, crises, and war.
That is section 40 in 1991.
How about this one, section 41:
Allies could be called upon to contribute to global
stability and peace by providing forces for United Nations
missions.
How about that for a mission in 1991? Did that impose an obligation
on us, legal obligation on this body, or on this Nation? Boy, I hope
not. Not in my book it did not.
Allies could be called upon to contribute to global
stability and peace by providing forces for United Nations
missions.
This was adopted in 1991 as a new Strategic Concept. That did not
impose a thing on us. It was a new Strategic Concept adopted by NATO,
not a legally binding commitment on the alliance.
It was not submitted to us then as a treaty change because it was not
a treaty change, nor is this new Strategic Concept of 1999 legally
binding upon us any more than the 1991 Strategic Concept was.
So I think we ought to adopt this amendment. It is something which is
highly appropriate to ask the President whether or not the new
Strategic Concept of NATO imposes any new commitment or obligation on
the United States, the key word there to me being ``imposes.''
I ask, Mr. President, before I yield the floor, that the yeas and
nays be ordered on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges
of the floor be granted to the following Pearson Fellow on the staff of
the Foreign Relations Committee, Joan Wadelton, during the pendency of
the Department of Defense Authorization legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
Again, I will be supporting this amendment.
Mr. ROBERTS. With the debate we have had on the floor, although there
is support--and the better part of judgment would be for me to simply
yield the floor--we will try to split the shingle one more time. The
debate is centered around whether or not the new Strategic Concept
adopted at the 50th anniversary of NATO is legally binding, a treaty,
or different from the 1991 Concept, let alone the 1949 Concept.
Let me just say that the 1991 document really stressed that--as a
matter of fact, it assured--no NATO weaponry will ever be used
offensively. We are sure doing that now in regard to Kosovo. In
addition, in terms of the 19 parties who met in Washington, I am sure
that each one of them certainly thought it was binding. And if the men
and women in the uniform of all our allies do not think it is binding,
I think they had better look for a new definition.
I believe any document that contains even tacit commitment by the
United States and other nations to engage in new types of NATO
missions--and let me simply say that these missions are now described
as problems with drugs, problems with social progress, with reform,
with ethnic strife; about the only thing that is not in there is don't
put gum in the water fountain--outside the domain of the original
treaty, as well as a commitment to structure military forces
accordingly, can be considered an international agreement.
I refer again to the U.S. Department of State Circular 175, the
Procedure on Treaties, that sets forth eight considerations available
for determining whether or not an agreement or an accord should be
submitted to the Senate for ratification. Four of them I will repeat
again: The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks
affecting the Nation as a whole--if Kosovo is not a risk, I do not know
what is--whether the agreement can be given effect without the
enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress; past U.S.
practices as to similar agreements; the preference of Congress as to a
particular type of agreement.
It seems to me, if I recall the debate and the two copies of the
original 1949 document, and then the Strategic Concept document, No. 1,
they said no offensive weapons. No. 2, they said we are going to stay
within our borders and we will meet with you before we go outside the
borders and go wandering in the territory of a sovereign nation. Then
lastly, we are going to consult with the U.N. It is going to be in
cooperation with the U.N. All that is different.
I think to say that it is not different in regard to 1991 is simply
not accurate.
I don't know. I suppose per se, legally--I am not a lawyer--that this
Strategic Concept is not a treaty. But it sure walks like a treaty duck
and it quacks like a treaty duck and it is wandering into different
areas like a treaty duck. In the quacking and the walking, it is
causing a lot of problems.
I simply say, in closing, I do respect the Senator from Michigan and
his support and the Senator from Delaware for his accommodating my
amendment. It is true that the Senator from Delaware said that I was in
the House of Representatives, the other body, what Senator Byrd refers
to as the lower body. In 1990 we were not asleep. We were not asleep at
all. We admired the Senator from Delaware from afar. We were
spellbound, as a matter of fact, by his oratorical skills, his
sartorial splendor, and his ability to be heard above all in the
Senate, regardless of whether the acoustical system was working or not.
So I thank the Senator from Delaware for his comments.
I urge Senators to support this amendment and send a strong message
that we are adhering to our constitutional right when we change an
agreement that in effect directly affects the lives of our American men
and women and our national security, that the Senate stepped up to the
plate.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. Under the
previous order, the Roberts-Warner
[[Page 10710]]
amendment No. 377 will be temporarily laid aside.
Mr. WARNER. And the vote will occur, Mr. President, if you continue
to read the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur after the Roth amendment
at 2:15.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
Now, Mr. President, we are ready to receive the comments under the
standing order for the day from our distinguished colleague from
Minnesota. These comments will be relative to what I call the third
amendment, No. 382. Perhaps we could take this time to vote the first
two by voice.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, besides the environmental assessment
amendment, the second amendment we are taking deals with atomic vets--
is that correct--compensation for atomic vets? I am pleased to do so,
and I thank both my colleagues for their help and comments.
Mr. WARNER. We are happy to be of accommodation. Would the Senator
urge the adoption of the two amendments?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I urge the adoption of the two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the two amendments are
agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. These are amendments Nos. 380 and 383?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments 380 and 381.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry, 380 and 381.
Mr. LEVIN. As modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As modified.
The amendments (No. 380 and No. 381), as modified, were agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 380
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I
offered that would remove some of the frustrating and infuriating
obstacles that have too often kept veterans who were exposed to
radiation during military service from getting the disability
compensation they deserve. This amendment would add three radiogenic
conditions to the list of presumptively service-connected diseases for
which atomic veterans may receive VA compensation, specifically: lung
cancer; colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous
system. It is based on a bill I introduced during the last Congress, S.
1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act.
At the outset, let me say that this amendment was accepted and
adopted by the Senate just a few months ago as a part of S. 4, the
Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999.
Because that bill appears to be dead on arrival in the House, I am
offering it on the Defense Authorization bill. I think this amendment
was relevant to S. 4 and it is certainly relevant to this bill. But I
mention the history of this amendment to my colleagues in the belief
that what was acceptable to the Senate three months ago will be
acceptable today.
I want to explain why this amendment is topical to the Defense
Authorization bill. I believe that the way we treat our veterans does
send an important message to young people considering service in the
military. When veterans of the Persian Gulf War don't get the kind of
treatment they deserve, when the VA health care budget loses out year
after year to other budget priorities, when veterans benefits claims
take years and years to resolve, what is the message we are sending to
future recruits?
How can we attract and retain young people in the service when our
government fails to honor its obligation to provide just compensation
and health care for those injured during service?
One of the most outrageous examples of our government's failure to
honor its obligations to veterans involves ``atomic veterans,''
patriotic Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and at atmospheric nuclear tests.
For more than 50 years, many of them have been denied compensation
for diseases that the VA recognizes as being linked to their exposure
to radiation--diseases known as radiogenic diseases. Many of these
diseases are lethal forms of cancers.
I received my first introduction to the plight of atomic veterans
from some first-rate mentors, the members of the Forgotten 216th. The
Forgotten 216th was the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S.
Army, which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper. Operation
Tumbler Snapper was a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests
in the Nevada desert in 1952.
About half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. What I've
learned from them, from other atomic veterans, and from their survivors
has shaped my views on this issue.
Five years ago, the Forgotten 216th contacted me after then-Secretary
of Energy O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted
radiation experiments on its own citizens. For the first time in
public, they revealed what went on during the Nevada tests and the
tragedies and trauma that they, their families, and their former
buddies had experienced since then.
Because their experiences and problems typify those of atomic
veterans nationwide, I'd like to tell my colleagues a little more about
the Forgotten 216th. When you hear their story, I think you have to
agree that the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them must never
be forgotten again.
Members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground
zero immediately after a nuclear blast. They were exposed to so much
radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they
inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or
no protection. They frequently had no film badges to measure radiation
exposure. They were given no information on the perils they faced.
Then they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear
tests. They were often denied access to their own service medical
records. And they were provided no medical follow-up.
For decades, atomic veterans have been America's most neglected
veterans. They have been deceived and treated shabbily by the
government they served so selflessly and unquestioningly.
If the U.S. Government can't be counted on to honor its obligation to
these deserving veterans, how can young people interested in military
service have any confidence that their government will do any better by
them?
I believe the neglect of atomic veterans should stop here and now.
Our government has a long overdue debt to these patriotic Americans, a
debt that we in the Senate must help to repay. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to help repay this debt by supporting this
amendment.
My legislation and this amendment have enjoyed the strong support of
veterans service organizations. Recently, the Independent Budget for FY
2000, which is a budget recommendation issued by AMVETS, Disabled
American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), endorsed adding these radiogenic
diseases to VA's presumptive service-connected list.
Let me briefly describe the problem that my amendment is intended to
address. When atomic veterans try to claim VA compensation for their
illnesses, VA almost invariably denies their claims. VA tells these
veterans that their radiation doses were too low--below 5 rems.
But the fact is, we don't really know that and, even if we did,
that's no excuse for denying these claims. The result of this
unrealistic standard is that it is almost impossible for these atomic
veterans to prove their case. The only solution is to add these
conditions to the VA presumptive service-connected list, and that's
what my amendment does.
First of all, trying to go back and determine the precise dosage each
of these veterans was exposed to is a futile undertaking. Scientists
agree that
[[Page 10711]]
the dose reconstruction performed for the VA is notoriously unreliable.
GAO itself has noted the inherent uncertainties of dose
reconstruction. Even VA scientific personnel have conceded its
unreliability. In a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, Under Secretary for
Health Kenneth Kizer has recommended that the VA reconsider its
opposition to S. 1385 based, in part, on the unreliability of dose
reconstruction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Dr. Kizer's
memo be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[See exhibit 1.]
Mr. WELLSTONE. In addition, none of the scientific experts who
testified at a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on S. 1385 on
April 21, 1998, supported the use of dose reconstruction to determine
eligibility for VA benefits.
Let me explain why dose reconstruction is so difficult. Dr. Marty
Gensler on my staff has researched this issue for over five years, and
this is what he has found.
Many atomic veterans were sent to ground zero immediately after a
nuclear test with no protection, no information on the known dangers
they faced, no badges or other monitoring equipment, and no medical
followup.
As early as 1946, ranking military and civilian personnel responsible
for nuclear testing anticipated claims for service-connected disability
and sought to ensure that ``no successful suits could be brought on
account of radiological hazards.'' That quotation comes from documents
declassified by the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation
Experiments.
The VA, during this period, maintained classified records
``essential'' to evaluating atomic veterans' claims, but these records
were unavailable to veterans themselves.
Atomic veterans were sworn to secrecy and were denied access to their
own service and medical records for many years, effectively barring
pursuit of compensation claims.
It's partly as a result of these missing or incomplete records that
so many people have doubts abut the validity of dose reconstructions
for atomic veterans, some of which are performed more than fifty years
after exposure.
Even if these veterans' exposure was less than 5 rems, which is the
standard used by VA, this standard is not based on uncontested science.
In 1994, for example, GAO stated: ``A low level dose has been estimated
to be somewhere below 10 rems [but] it is not known for certain whether
doses below this level are detrimental to public health.''
Despite persistent doubts about VA's and DoD's dose reconstruction,
and despite doubts about the science on which VA's 5 rem standard is
based, these dose reconstructions are used to bar veterans from
compensation for disabling radiogenic conditions.
The effects of this standard have been devastating. A little over two
years ago the VA estimated that less than 50 claims for non-presumptive
diseases had been approved out of over 18,000 radiation claims filed.
Atomic veterans might as well not even bother. Their chances of
obtaining compensation are negligible.
It is impossible for many atomic veterans and their survivors to be
given ``the benefit of the doubt'' by the VA while their claims hinge
on the dubious accuracy and reliability of dose reconstruction and the
health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation remain
uncertain.
This problem can be fixed. The reason atomic veterans have to go
through this reconstruction at all is that the diseases listed in my
amendment are not presumed to be service-connected. That's the real
problem.
VA already has a list of service-connected diseases that are presumed
service-connected, but these are not on it.
This makes no sense. Scientists agree that there is at least as
strong a link between radiation exposure and these diseases as there is
to the other diseases on that VA list.
You might ask why I've included these three diseases in particular--
lung cancer; colon cancer; and tumors of the brain and central nervous
system--in my amendment. The reason is very simple. The best, most
current, scientific evidence available justifies their inclusion. A
paper entitled ``Risk Estimates for Radiation Exposure'' by John D.
Boice, Jr., of the National Cancer Institute, published in 1996 as part
of a larger work called Health Effects of Exposure to Low-Level
Ionizing Radiation, includes a table which rates human cancers by the
strength of the evidence linking them to exposure to low levels of
ionizing radiation. According to this study, the evidence of a link for
lung cancer is ``very strong''--the highest level of confidence--and
the evidence of a link for colon and brain and central nervous system
cancers is ``convincing''--the next highest level of confidence. So I
believe I can say with a great deal of certainty, Mr. President, that
science is on the side of this amendment. And I ask unanimous consent
that a copy of the table I just mentioned be printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
Last year, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee reported out a
version of S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act, which included
three diseases to be added to the VAs presumptive list. Two of those
diseases, lung cancer and brain and central nervous system cancer, I
have included in my amendment. The third disease included in the
reported bill was ovarian cancer. Mr. President, I'd like to explain
why I substituted colon cancer for ovarian cancer. It is true that the
1996 study I just cited states that the evidence of a linkage for
ovarian cancer to low level ionizing radiation is ``convincing,'' just
as it is for colon cancer. But Mr. President, there are no female
atomic veterans. The effect of creating a presumption of service
connection for ovarian cancer is basically no effect--because no one
could take advantage of it. However, the impact of adding colon cancer
as a presumption for atomic veterans is significant; atomic veterans
will be able to take advantage of that presumption.
The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
agreed in 1995 that VA's current list should be expanded. The Committee
cited concerns that ``the listing of diseases for which relief is
automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for by the
1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate'' and that ``the standard of
proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and,
given the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by
the government, inappropriate.'' The President's Advisory Committee
urged Congress to address the concerns of atomic veterans and their
families ``promptly.''
The unfair treatment of atomic veterans becomes especially clear when
compared to both Agent Orange and Persian Gulf veterans. In
recommending that the Administration support S. 1385, Under Secretary
for Health Kenneth Kizer cited the indefensibility of denying
presumptive service connection for atomic veterans in light of the
presumption for Persian Gulf War veterans and Agent Orange veterans.
In 1993, the VA decided to make lung cancer presumptively service-
connected for Agent Orange veterans. That decision was based on a
National Academy of Sciences study that had found a link only where
Agent Orange exposures were ``high and prolonged,'' but pointed out
there was only a ``limited'' capability to determine individual
exposures.
For atomic veterans, however, lung cancer continues to be non-
presumptive. In short, the issue of exposure levels poses an almost
insurmountable obstacle to approval of claims by atomic veterans, while
the same problem is ignored for Agent orange veterans.
Persian Gulf War veterans can receive compensation for symptoms or
illnesses that may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at
least until scientists reach definitive conclusions about the etiology
of their health problems. Unfortunately, atomic veterans aren't given
the same consideration or benefit of the doubt.
I believe this state of affairs is outrageous and unjust. The
struggle of
[[Page 10712]]
atomic veterans for justice has been long, hard, and frustrating. But
these patriotic, dedicated and deserving veterans have persevered. My
amendment would finally provide them the justice that they so much
deserve.
Let me say this in closing. As I have worked with veterans and
military personnel during my time in the Senate, I have seen a
troubling erosion of the Federal Government's credibility with current
and former service members. No salary is high enough, no pension big
enough to compensate our troops for the dangers they endure while
defending our country. Such heroism stems from love for America's
sacred ideals of freedom and democracy and the belief that the nation's
gratitude is not limited by fiscal convenience but reflects a debt of
honor.
This is one of those issues which test our faith in our government.
But the Senate can take an important step in righting this injustice. I
urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in helping
atomic veterans win their struggle by supporting my amendment.
Exhibit 1
Department of Veterans Affairs,
April 21, 1998.
From: Under Secretary for Health (10).
Subject: Request for Reconsideration of the Department's
Position on S. 1385 (Wellstone).
To: Secretary (00).
1. I request that you reconsider the Department's position
on S. 1385 (Wellstone), which would add a number of
conditions as presumptive service-connected conditions for
atomic veterans to those already prescribed by law. I only
learned that the Department was opposing this measure last
night on reading the Department's prepared testimony for
today's hearing; I had no input into that testimony. Indeed,
my views on this bill have not been obtained. I would
strongly support this bill as a matter of equity and
fairness.
2. I do not think the Department's current opposition to S.
1385 is defensible in view of the Administration's position
on presumed service-connection for Gulf War veterans, as well
as its position on Agency Orange and Vietnam veterans.
3. While the scientific methodology that is the basis for
adjudicating radiation exposure cases may be sound, the
problem is that the exposure cannot be reliably determined
for many individuals, and it never will be able to be
determined in my judgment. Thus, no matter how good the
method is, if the input is not valid then the determination
will be suspect.
4. I ask that we formally reconsider and change the
Department's position on S. 1385. I feel the proper and
prudent position for the Department is to support S. 1385.
Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H.
____
Table 8.4--Strength of evidence that certain human cancers
are induced following exposure to low levels of ionizing
radiation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very strong............................ Leukemia, Female breast,
Thyroid, Lung.
Convincing............................. Stomach, Colon, Bladder, Ovary,
Brain/CNS, Skin.
Weak, inconsistent..................... Liver, Salivary glands,
Esophagus, Multiple myeloma,
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Kidney.
Not convincing......................... CLL, Male breast, Hodgkin's
disease, Cervix, Prostate,
Testes, Pancreas, Small
intestine, Pharynx,
hypopharynx, larynx, Certain
childhood cancers, Skeleton
support tissues.
Only at very high doses................ Bone, Connective tissue,
Rectum, Uterus/Vagina.
High-Let exposures: Thorotrast (TH- Liver, Leukemia, Bone, Lung.
232), Radium, Radon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment no. 381
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment, amendment 381, entitled
``Provision of Information and Guidance to the Public Regarding
Environmental Contamination at U.S. Military Installations Formerly
Operated by the United States that Have Been Closed,'' is a simple,
straightforward amendment, but one which can potentially go a long way
toward ensuring that the United States leaves a positive environmental
legacy behind when we withdraw from military bases overseas. As we have
withdrawn from our bases around the world, the U.S. military has taken
some steps to clean-up contamination at those bases before leaving. But
there are still many convincing reports that contamination has been
left behind. As the New York Times noted last December in an editorial,
``Fuels, lubricants, cleaning fluids and other chemicals are leaching
into groundwater, and unexploded shells linger on testing grounds long
after American soldiers leave.'' This is especially true in the
Philippines, where we withdrew from Subic Bay and Clark Air Base, in
1992. And it will soon apply to Panama where will finish our withdrawal
at the end of 1999.
I understand very well that the Pentagon has no legal obligations
under our treaties with these countries to pay for a clean-up of
environmental contamination. And I am not calling for any funding for
such a clean-up. What this amendment requires the Pentagon to do is
simply to provide as much information as possible and to cooperate in
interpreting that information so that nations such as the Philippines
can complete environmental studies to tell them exactly what has been
left behind.
So far the Pentagon has turned over substantial information to the
Philippine government, but it has done so slowly and grudgingly. We
need to be more forthcoming to help the Filipinos deal with this issue
before the contamination in the Subic and Clark areas causes further
health problems.
This amendment is intended to protect the legacy of the U.S. in those
countries where we maintained bases. It does not look at the
environmental issue as a legal issue but as a moral one. At a time when
anti-Americanism may be growing in certain parts of the world we need
to ensure that in those countries that are our longtime allies, we do
what we can to promote a positive image of the U.S. even after we leave
our bases.
We will continue to have close military and political relations with
countries such as the Philippines and Panama and we should not let this
environmental issue fester and become an impediment to good relations.
The amendment as modified applies only to bases already closed.
Initially I had intended to extend it to bases which would be closing
in the future, which would include our facilities in Panama. However,
since I understand that sensitive negotiations are underway on this
very issue between the U.S. and Panama and I did not want this
amendment to in any way interfere with the successful conclusion of
those negotiations. But I want the record to show that I believe that
we should be very forthcoming in releasing information on environmental
conditions at our facilities in Panama as we close them. I would like
to see the Pentagon avoid the long delays in providing information
which we have seen in the Philippine case by following the spirit of
this amendment. Of course, if we see a similar problem in the case of
Panama we may have to revisit this issue next year and propose a
similar provision to require the Department of Defense to make
information available publicly.
If we assist our strategic partners in their efforts to complete
environmental baseline studies, it is quite likely that any clean-up
which occurs down the road will be done by American companies, who are
the leaders in this field. Without the information and the necessary
studies these countries are unable to identify the scope of the problem
and begin to move toward some type of amelioration. Once the studies
are in hand they may be able to approach international lenders, such as
the World Bank, for funding and subsequently some clean-up contracts
may go to U.S. companies.
Mr. President, when we close our bases and leave behind environmental
contamination, the people who suffer from the contamination are almost
always people already living in poverty and already struggling to
maintain good health. They do not also need to contend with a toxic
legacy left by the U.S. military. Just to highlight one of the most
disturbing cases, I want to discuss the situation in the Philippines
and especially at the site of the former Clark Air Base.
According to a recent report in the Philippine Star Newspaper, a
forensic expert at the Commission of Human Rights (CHR) identified 29
persons who were living at volcano evacuation centers who were found to
be suffering from various ailments attributed to mercury and nitrate
elements left by the Americans when they abandoned their air base at
Clark in 1991.
``The clinical manifestation exhibited by the patients were
consistent with chemical exposure,'' the report
[[Page 10713]]
said. It noted that 13 children aged one to seven ``manifested signs
and symptoms of birth defects and neurological disorders,'' adding that
``four females suffered spontaneous abortions and still births.''
``These can be attributed to mercury exposure,'' the report said. It
also reported ``central nervous system disorders, Kidney disorder and
cyanosis'' among the persons at evacuation center at Clark, ailments he
said can be traced to nitrates exposure.''
Earlier, the CHR forensic office staff collected water samples from
the deep wells at the evacuation center in Clark and the Madapdap
resettlement site for volcano victims in Mabalacat, Pampanga.
The samples were later brought to the metals lab of the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB) for analysis. In a report dated April 16, the
EMB found 200 milligrams of mercury per liter of water and from 386 to
27 mg of nitrate per liter of water in the Clark area.
``These two chemicals, together with coliform for bacteria were found
to be present in water in values exceeding the standard set by the
WHO,'' the report said.
The report recommended the immediate removal of the residents at
Clark, and the thorough diagnosis and treatment of the patients.''
Among the victims identified in the report were Edmarie Rose Escoto,
5; Kelvin, 7; Martha Rose Pabalan, 4; 8-month-old Alexander; Sara
Tolentino, and Abraham Taruc, who all had deformities to their lower
limbs and cannot walk.
Rowell Borja, 5, and Sheila Pineda, 3, both had congenital heart
ailments. Skin disorders were also found prevalent in other children,
while cysts and kidney disorders were observed in adults.
The People's Task Force for Bases Cleanup (PTFBC) has pointed out
that ``there is more than enough preliminary evidence of the toxic
waste problem at the former U.S. bases in the Philippines.''
Among the documents that have confirmed the presence of toxic wastes
at the former bases are pamphlets from the U.S. Department of Defense
entitled ``Environmental Review of the Drawdown Activities at Clark
Airbase'' (September 1991) and ``Potential Restoration sites on Board
the U.S. Facility, Subic Bay.'' (October 1992).
The PTFBC also cited 2 reports of the U.S. Government Accounting
Office titled ``Military Base Closure, U.S. Financial Obligations at
the Philippines'' (Oct. 1992) as well as an independent report of the
WHO on May 9, 1992.
Mr. President, I recently received a letter from the Philippine Study
Group of Minnesota expressing their concerns about the environmental
contamination left by the U.S. military at the former Clark Air Base.
They reported the results of a trip to the Philippines by two young
Filipina-American women, Christina Leano and Amy Toledo, who have been
working with the affected populations near Clark field and have been
meeting with my staff in Minnesota and here in Washington.
When these two young women returned from the Philippines, they
communicated the concern of the Filipino people about the problems of
toxic waste remaining at both Clark and Subic. The problems are of
sufficient concern to municipal governments near Clark that they tried
to develop systems to deliver alternative water sources to the affected
populations. However, they do not have the necessary resources. They
said that the concerns of the people near Clark have been front page
news in the Philippines and Philippine Senator Loren Legarda will soon
hold hearings in this issue. The Philippine Study Group of Minnesota
wrote to me, and I quote:
These bases . . . have severe problems that demand
immediate attention. It is very unfortunate that the U.S.
Department of Defense will not admit that they left polluted
sites when they vacated the bases. Contrary to statements
made by Secretary of State Albright, when she was in the
Philippines last summer, the Department of Defense will not
even release important documents needed by Philippine
Development authorities.
We need at a minimum to see that all relevant documents are turned
over to Philippine authorities. This includes key documents such as
information on the construction of the wells and water supply system at
Clark and hydrologic surveys for Clark which should be released to the
Clark Development Corporation (CDC). Currently, the CDC does not have
drawings or data on the water system and they are trying to improve the
water delivery system without the data they need. The Philippine Study
Group of Minnesota say they ``are incredulous that the Defense
Department will not even release those non-military technical documents
that would be of great help to Philippine authorities.''
This amendment would require the Defense Department to do that. It is
a simple, reasonable step toward improving the environmental situation
for the people of the Philippines. It is a step in the direction of
assuring our allies that when the U.S. closes a military base, it
leaves behind a legacy of friendship, cooperation, and sensitivity to
environmental justice--not a toxic legacy.
Mr. President, we have a long history with the Philippines. From the
turn of the century until 1991, except for the period of Japanese
occupation during WWII, U.S. military forces used lands in Central
Luzon and around Subic Bay in the Philippines as military bases which
grew to be among the largest U.S. overseas bases in the world. The main
purpose of Subic Bay Naval Base was to service the U.S. Navy Seventh
Fleet. Forested lands were also used for training exercises. Clark Air
Base served as a major operations and support facility during the
Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
In 1991, more than 7,000 military personnel were stationed at Clark
in addition to dependents and civilian support. Operations carried out
on the bases included, but were not limited to: fuel loading, storage,
distribution, and dispensing; ship servicing, repair, and overhaul;
ammunition transfer, assembly, destruction, and storage; aircraft
servicing, cleaning, repair, and storage; base vehicle fleet servicing,
cleaning, repair, overhaul, and operation; power generation;
electricity transformation and distribution; steam generation; water
treatment and distribution; sewage collection and treatment; hazardous
waste storage and disposal; bitumen production; electroplating;
corrosion protection; and weed and pest control.
These activities, for many years not conducted in a manner protective
of the environment, lead to substantial contamination of the air, soil,
groundwater, sediments, and coastal waters of the bases and their
surroundings. This was not unique to the Philippines. Military and
industrial activities in the U.S. and around the world have had similar
effects. Contaminants include, but are not limited to, petroleum
hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
pesticides, PCB's metals, asbestos, acids, explosives and munitions.
Whether or not radioactive wastes are present is uncertain.
The Philippine Senate voted in 1991 not to renew the bases agreement
between the two countries. In June of that same year, Mt. Pinatubo
erupted hastening U.S. withdrawal from Clark Air Base. U.S. forces left
Subic Naval Base in 1992, ending almost a century of occupation of
these vast areas of Luzon. Notwithstanding initial Department of
Defense protestations to the contrary, substantial amounts of hazardous
materials and wastes were left behind at the time of the U.S. departure
both on the surface and in various environmental media. According to a
GAO report issued in 1992,
If the United States unilaterally decided to clean up these
bases in accordance with U.S. standards, the costs for
environmental clean-up and restoration could approach
Superfund proportions.
Environmental officers at both Subic Bay Naval Facility and Clark Air
Base have proposed a variety of projects to correct environmental
hazards and remedy situations that pose serious health and safety
threats.'' None of these projects was undertaken prior to U.S.
departure from the baselands. A study commissioned by the WHO in
[[Page 10714]]
1993, in order to assess potential environmental risks at Subic Bay,
identified a number of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites
and recommended a complete environmental assessment.
Two study teams visited the sites in 1994, under the sponsorship of
the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, and not only found
evidence of environmental contamination but carefully documented the
lack of existing capacity in the Philippines, whether in government,
university, or private sectors, to assess and remediate this complex
problem.
The health and safety issues are not theoretical or contingent on
future development of the bases. At the present time rusting and
bulging barrels of hazardous materials are sitting uncovered at Clark.
There are reports of exposed asbestos insulation in buildings vacated
by departing U.S. personnel. For years waste materials from the ship
repair facility were dumped or discharged directly into Subic Bay,
contaminating sediments, and now residents from surrounding communities
eat fish and shellfish harvested from this area. Thousands of evacuees
displaced from homes destroyed by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and lava
flows which followed have been temporarily housed in tents and
makeshift wooden structure on Clark Air Base at a site previously
occupied by a motorpool. They obtain drinking and bathing water from
groundwater wells.
Just beyond the Dau gate, about 300 yards from this evacuation
center, is the permanent community of Dau where many thousands of
residents routinely use groundwater for drinking, cooking, and bathing.
Because of complaints of gross contamination of water from some of the
wells in the evacuation area, including visible oily sheen, foul taste,
and gastrointestinal illness, one sample was tested at the laboratories
of the University of the Philippines in early 1994 and found to contain
oil and grease. Limited by laboratory capability, the analysis did not
include the wide range of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds,
fuels, fuel additives, and other compounds which commonly contaminate
groundwater in the U.S. and in other countries where similar military
and industrial activities have taken place.
Many of these substances have important health effects when present
even in extremely small amounts--health effects which may take years to
become apparent--including cancer, birth and developmental
abnormalities, and neurological or immunological damage. Moreover,
there are numerous instances in the U.S. where contaminated groundwater
at military bases has migrated off-base, sometimes for a distance of
several miles, entering the drinking water of surrounding communities
and posing a threat to public health. This is not only possible but
likely at Clark Air Base, only one of numerous sites of concern at both
bases, and one which is beyond existing Philippine capacity to assess
let alone to remediate.
When President Clinton visited the Philippines in November 1994 both
he and President Ramos acknowledged that the issue of base
contamination would need to be further investigated. However, President
Clinton stated that, ``We have no reason to believe at this time that
there is a big problem that we left untended. We clearly are not
mandated under treaty obligations to do more.'' He went on to say ``. .
.we decided we should focus on finding the facts now, and when we find
them, deal then with the facts as they are.''
Though there may be no treaty obligation to address this issue, there
are obvious moral and public health arguments which should compel the
U.S. to accept responsibility for environmental assessment and
remediation of the former bases in the Philippines. There are other
overseas bases in, for example, Canada, Germany, Italy and Japan, where
in response to host-country discovery and complaints of environmental
contamination, the U.S. has provided assessment and clean-up. After
nearly a century of occupation of these Philippine baselands, the
obligation is no less. Meanwhile, as the political resolution of this
issue unfolds, thousands of Filipinos, many of whom are living in
marginal refugee conditions, and drinking and bathing in water which
may be contaminated with hazardous substances resulting from U.S.
military activities.
If these circumstances were to exist in the U.S. the groundwater
would already have been comprehensively tested for a broad spectrum of
substances and the public's health protected, while resulting plumes of
contamination were being mapped and remediation strategies executed.
Until we can answer with certainty whether or not this water is safe
for consumption, an answer which neither Philippine government, public
health officials, nor academicians are able to provide without
assistance, and eliminate any identified hazardous exposures, the U.S.
may be viewed as bearing responsibility for any resulting health
effects.
Amendment No. 382
Mr. WARNER. Having done that, we will now proceed to amendment No.
382, on which the Senator will address the Senate pursuant to the
standing order, and then at a time later we will schedule the vote.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be ready to go, if I could have
just 30 seconds to also say on the floor of Senate, when I say ``we,''
I don't mean as in me. I mean the collective us. This is for both
Senator Levin and Senator Warner. You also, in a bipartisan way,
through your efforts, were able to put an amendment into this bill that
deals with family violence. I thank you. I think this is an extremely
important amendment.
The problem was that all too often, when a spouse usually a woman--
would report violence, there was no real right of guarantee of
confidentiality, which we needed. In other words, a woman could go to a
doctor and then her report to a doctor could get out publicly. This
really will enable women who are the victims of this violence to be
able to go to someone and receive some support and help. It is
extremely important. Both of you have supported this. I think there is
similar language over in the House side. I thank the two of you. This
is an amendment I am really proud of. I thank you.
Mr. WARNER. Once again, Mr. President, I am advised that the vote on
No. 382, the amendment the Senator is about to debate in the Senate
under the standing agreement, can be voted as the third vote in
sequence this afternoon.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. All right.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on that amendment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 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 Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if it would be in order, if there
would be any objection, to ask unanimous consent that no further
business be held between now and the recess so that people know there
is not going to be any additional----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am not objecting, but I think we should
just simply say that at 1, at which time the 30 minutes expires, the
Senate will stand in recess until the first vote, which is scheduled
for 2:15.
Mr. LEVIN. But for some of us who planned to actually leave here at
12:30, I think it is important, if there is an understanding to this
effect, that there be no further amendments offered or any other
business carried on between now and the time that we recess for the
luncheons. Is that agreeable?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have no agreement, but let's make it
very clear that we will now begin to address amendment No. 382. As soon
as that debate is concluded, the Senate will stand in recess until the
hour of 2:15, when the first vote is to take place, and there would be
no intervening business transacted.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, just to clarify, I don't have any
objection to that unanimous consent request, but I
[[Page 10715]]
want to make some general remarks in regard to the total bill. I just
wanted to try----
Mr. WARNER. I am prepared to accommodate the Senator. What about the
hour of 4 today? You have 30 minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine. I appreciate that. I think if we set
aside 20 minutes, that would be fine. I appreciate that.
Mr. WARNER. We would be glad to do that and make it a part of the
unanimous consent request which we are jointly propounding, Mr. Levin
and myself. Is that agreeable?
Mr. LEVIN. I apologize.
Mr. WARNER. We just added, 4 to 4:20, this colleague may speak on the
bill.
Mr. President, I am happy to restate it, but I think the Chair is----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment speaks to the priorities
of the Senate or lack of priorities of the Senate.
We have here a bill that really talks about authorization, leading to
appropriation of hundreds of billions of dollars for defense, for the
Pentagon.
I will talk about the priorities of some low-income families in our
country. Their priorities are how to keep a roof over their children's
heads. Their priorities are how to get food in their children's
stomachs. Their priorities are how to earn a wage that pays their
bills.
And their priorities are how to obtain medical assistance when they
are sick or when their children are sick.
Mr. President, 2 years ago we passed a welfare bill, and as we start
to see more and more families slide deeper and deeper into poverty, and
as we see around the country some of these families losing their
benefits, I have not heard so much as a whisper of concern, let alone a
shout of outrage, from the Senate.
So I rise to propose an amendment. It is an amendment that I hope
will receive the support of every Senator, Democrat and Republican
alike. It is simple and it is straightforward.
Current law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
provide an annual report to Congress. My amendment requires the
Secretary to include information about families who have moved off the
welfare rolls. What kind of jobs do they have? What is their employment
status? What kind of wages are they making? Is it a living wage? What
is the child care situation with their children? Have they been dropped
from medical assistance? Do they have any health insurance coverage at
all?
Mr. President, like my colleagues, I had hoped that the welfare
reform bill--though I voted against it because I had real reservations
about how it would really take shape and form throughout the country--
would work. But I have my doubts. On the basis of some of the evidence
I present here today, I believe we need to find out with certainty what
is happening to families, mainly women and children, when they no
longer receive welfare assistance in our country.
Since August of 1996, 1.3 million families have left welfare. They
are no longer receiving welfare assistance. That is 4.5 million
recipients, and they are mainly women and children. The vast majority
of these 4.5 million citizens are children. On the basis of these
numbers, too many people have deemed welfare reform a success.
But to see the welfare rolls reduced dramatically does not mean
necessarily that we have reduced poverty in this country. It doesn't
mean these families have moved from welfare to self-sufficiency. It
doesn't mean these families have moved from welfare to economic self-
sufficiency. These statistics, the drop in the welfare caseload, which
has been so loudly talked about as evidence of success by Republicans,
Democrats, and by this Democratic administration, doesn't tell us what
is really happening. It doesn't tell us anything about how these women
and children are doing. It doesn't tell us whether or not these
families are better off now that they are no longer receiving welfare
assistance, or whether they have fallen further into poverty. It
doesn't tell us if the mothers can find work. It doesn't tell us if
they are making enough of an income to lift themselves and their
children out of poverty. It doesn't tell us whether these mothers have
adequate access to affordable child care, and it doesn't tell us
whether or not these mothers and these children have any health care
coverage at all.
No one seems to know what has happened to these families. Yet, we
keep trumpeting the ``victory'' of welfare reform. The declining
caseloads tell us nothing at all about how families are faring once
they no longer receive assistance. I am worried that they are just
disappearing and this amendment is all about a new class of citizens in
our country. I call them The Disappeared.
Let me give you some examples. We are hearing a lot about the plunge
in food stamp participation. Over the last 4 years, the number of
people using food stamps dropped by almost one-third--from 28 million
to 19 million people. Some people want to interpret this as evidence of
diminished need. But just like the decline in the welfare rolls, there
are important questions left unanswered. I hope this drop in food stamp
assistance means that fewer people are going hungry, but I have my
doubts. If people are no longer needy, then how can we account for the
fact that 78 percent of the cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors for its ``Report on Hunger'' reported increases in requests for
emergency food in 1998? This January, a survey conducted by Catholic
Charities U.S.A. reported that 73 percent of the diocese had an
increase by as much as 145 percent in requests for emergency food
assistance from the year before.
How can we account for such findings without questioning whether or
not the reformers' claim of success are premature?
What is going on here? What is happening to these women and children?
Should we not know? The esteemed Gunnar Myrdal said, ``Ignorance is
never random.'' Sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know.
This amendment says we ought to do an honest evaluation and have the
Secretary of Health and Human Services provide a report to us as to
exactly what is happening with these women and children.
A story Friday from the New York Times suggests one explanation. One
welfare recipient was told incorrectly that she could not get food
stamps without welfare. Though she is scraping by, raising a family of
five children and sometimes goes hungry, she has not applied for food
stamps. ``They referred me to the food pantry,'' she said. ``They don't
tell you what you really need to know; they tell you what they want you
to know.''
The truth of the matter is that there is an information vacuum at the
national level with regard to welfare reform. What has happened to the
mothers and children who no longer receive any assistance? In a moment,
I am going to talk about some findings from NETWORK, a national
Catholic social justice organization--findings that should disturb each
and every Senator. At the outset, let me read a brief excerpt from the
report that outlines the problem:
Even though government officials are quick to point out
that national welfare caseloads are at their lowest point in
30 years, they are unable to tell us for the most part what
is happening to people after they leave the welfare rolls--
and what is happening to people living in poverty who never
received assistance in the first place.
I am especially concerned because the evidence we do have suggests
that the goals of welfare reform are not being achieved. People are
continuing to suffer and continuing to struggle to meet their basic
needs, and I am talking primarily about women and children. I challenge
the Senate today with this amendment. At the very minimum, we should
call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give us a report
on the status of those women and those children who no longer receive
any welfare assistance.
[[Page 10716]]
Should we not at least know what is happening to these families?
I have already mentioned the dramatic decline in welfare caseloads.
We must recognize that it is naive to assume that all of the 1.3
million of these families have found jobs and are moving toward a life
of economic self-sufficiency. After all, the caseload decline has not
been matched by a similar decline in poverty indicators. Moreover,
since 1995, colleagues, what we have seen is an increase among the
severest and harshest poverty. This is when income is less than one-
half of what the official definition of poverty is. We have found an
increase of 400,000 children living among the ranks of the poorest of
poor families in America. Could this have something to do with these
families being cut off welfare assistance? We ought to at least know.
I have already mentioned the NETWORK report. What this group did was
collect data on people who visited Catholic social services facilities
in 10 States with large numbers of people eligible for aid, and I will
summarize these very dramatic findings.
Nearly half of the respondents report that their health is only fair
or poor; 43 percent eat fewer meals or less food per meal because of
the cost; they can't afford it. And 52 percent of soup kitchen patrons
are unable to provide sufficient food for their children, and even the
working poor are suffering as 41 percent of those with jobs experience
hunger. The people who are working work almost 52 weeks a year, 40
hours a week, and they are still so poor that they can't afford to buy
the food for their children. I am presenting this evidence today
because I want us to have the evidence.
In another study, seven local agencies and community welfare
monitoring coalitions in six States compared people currently receiving
welfare to those who stopped getting welfare in the last few months.
The data show that people who stopped getting welfare were less
likely to get food stamps, less likely to get Medicaid, more likely to
go without food for a day or more, more likely to move because they
couldn't pay rent, more likely to have a child who lived away or was in
foster care, more likely to have difficulty paying for and getting
child care, more likely to say ``my life is worse'' compared to 6
months ago.
Is that what we intended with this welfare reform bill?
The National Conference of State Legislatures did its own assessment
of 14 studies with good information about families leaving welfare. It
found that:
Most of the jobs [that former recipients get] pay between
$5.50 and $7 an hour, higher than minimum wage but not enough
to raise a family out of poverty. So far, few families who
leave welfare have been able to escape poverty.
Just this month, Families USA released a very troubling study. It
finds that:
Over two-thirds of a million low-income people--
approximately 675,000--lost Medicaid coverage and became
uninsured as of 1997 due to welfare reform. The majority (62
percent) of those who became uninsured due to welfare reform
were children, and most of those children were, in all
likelihood, still eligible for coverage under Medicaid.
Moreover, the number of people who lose health coverage due
to welfare reform is certain to grow rather substantially in
the years ahead.
Let me just translate this into personal terms.
Here is the story of one family that one of the sisters in the
NETWORK study worked with:
Martha and her seven-year-old child, David, live in
Chicago. She recently began working, but her 37-hour a week
job pays only $6.00 an hour. In order to work, Martha must
have childcare for David.
That is the name of my oldest son, David.
Since he goes to school, she found a sitter who would
receive him at 7 a.m. and take him to school. This sitter
provided after school care as well. When Sister Joan sat down
with Martha to talk about her finances, they discovered that
her salary does not even cover the sitter's costs.
By the way, as long as we are talking about afterschool care, let me
just mention to you that I remember a poignant conversation I had in
East L.A. I was at a Head Start center, and I was talking to a mother.
She was telling me that she was working. She didn't make much by way of
wages, but she was off welfare, and she wanted to work. As we were
talking and she was talking about working, all of a sudden she started
to cry. I was puzzled. I felt like maybe I had said something that had
upset her. I said: Can I ask you why you are crying?
She said: I am crying because one of the things that has happened is
that my first grader--I used to, when I was at home, take her to
school, and I also could pick her up after school.
She lived in a housing project. It is a pretty dangerous
neighborhood.
She said: Now, every day when my daughter, my first grader, finishes
up in school, I am terrified. I don't know what is going to happen to
her. There is no care for her, and she goes home, and I tell her to
lock the door and take no phone calls.
Colleagues, this amendment asks us to do a study of what is going on
with these children. How many children don't play outside even when the
weather is nice because there is nobody there to take care of them?
Let me talk about an even scarier situation--families that neither
receive government assistance nor have a parent with a job. We don't
know for certain how large this population is, but in the NETWORK study
79 percent of the people were unemployed and not receiving welfare
benefits. Of course this study was focused on the hardest hit.
Let me just say that in some of the earlier State studies, what we
are seeing is that as many as 50 percent of the families who lost
welfare benefits do not have jobs.
Can I repeat that?
Close to 50 percent perhaps--that is what we want to study--of the
families who have been cut off welfare assistance do not have jobs,
much less the number of families where the parents--usually a woman--
has a job, but it is $6 an hour and she can't afford child care and her
children don't have the necessary child care. Now her medical
assistance is gone and she is worse off and her children are worse off.
They are plunged into deeper poverty than before we passed this bill.
Don't we want to know what is happening in the country?
How are these families surviving? I am deeply concerned and worried
about them. They are no longer receiving assistance. And they don't
have jobs. They are literally falling between the cracks and they are
disappearing. I want us to focus on the disappeared Americans.
What do we do about this? I want to have bipartisan support.
I was a political science teacher before becoming a Senator. In
public policy classes, I used to talk about evaluation all the time.
That is one of the key ingredients of good public policy. That is what
I am saying today. We want to have some really good, thorough
evaluation. We have some States that are doing some studies. But the
problem is there are different methodologies and different studies that
are not comprehensive.
Before we passed this bill, when we were giving States waivers--
Minnesota was one example--43 of 50 States have been granted waivers.
They were all required to hire an outside contractor to evaluate the
impact of the program.
After this legislation passed, we didn't require this any longer of
States. Now we are only getting very fragmentary evidence. As a result,
we do not really know what is happening to these women. We don't know
what is happening to these children. The money that we have earmarked
is Labor-HHS appropriations, for Health and Human Services--$15 million
to provide some money for some careful evaluation. That is what we
need, policy evaluation. But the money has been rescinded.
What I am saying--I am skipping over some of the data--is at the very
least, what we want to do is to make sure that we do some decent
tracking and that we know in fact what is really going on here.
Let me just give you some examples that I think would be important
just to consider as I go along. Let me read from some work that has
been done by the Children's Defense Fund.
[[Page 10717]]
Alabama: Applying for cash assistance has become difficult in many
places. In one Alabama county, a professor found workers gave public
assistance applications to only 6 out of 27 undergraduate students who
requested them despite State policy that says anyone who asks for an
application should get one.
In other words, I know what was going on. This professor was saying
to students, go out there as welfare mothers and apply and see what
happens. They did. What they found out is that very few of them were
even given applications.
Arizona: 60 percent of former recipients were taken off welfare
because they did not appear for a welfare interview.
We are talking about sanctions.
After holding fairly steady from 1990 to 1993, the number of meals
distributed to Arizona statewide, Food Charity Networks, has since
risen to 30 percent, and a 1997 study found that 41 percent of
Networks' families had at least one person with a job.
Quite often what happens is the people who are off the rolls aren't
off the rolls because they found a job, but because they have been
sanctioned. The question is, Why have they been sanctioned? The
question is, What happened to them? What has happened to their
children?
California: Tens of thousands of welfare beneficiaries in California
and Illinois are dropped each month as punishment. In total, half of
those leaving welfare in these States are doing so because they did not
follow the rules.
This was from an AP 50-State survey. It was also cited in the
Salvation Army Fourth Interim Report.
In an L.A. family shelter, 12 percent of homeless families said they
had experienced benefit reductions or cuts that led directly to their
homelessness.
One of the questions, colleagues, is this rise of homelessness and
this rise of the use of food pantry shelves. Does it have something to
do with the fact that many of these women have found jobs but they
don't pay a living wage, or they haven't found work but the families
have been cut off assistance?
Florida: More than 15,000 families left welfare during a typical
month last year. About 3,600 reported finding work, but nearly 4,200
left because they were punished. The State does not know what happened
to almost 7,500 others.
Iowa: 47 percent of those who left welfare did so because they did
not comply with requirements such as going to job interviews or
providing paperwork.
Kentucky: 58 percent of the people who leave welfare are removed for
not following the rules.
Minnesota: In Minnesota, case managers found that penalized families
were twice as likely to have serious mental health problems, three
times as likely to have low intellectual ability, and five times more
likely to have family violence problems compared with other recipients.
Mississippi Delta region: Workfare recipients gather at 4 a.m. to
travel by bus for 2 hours to their assigned workplaces, work their full
days, and then return another 2 hours home each night. They are having
trouble finding child care during these nontraditional hours and for
such extended days.
I could give other reports of other States. Let me just say to every
single Senator here, Democrat and Republican alike, you may have a
different sense of what is going on with the welfare bill. That is
fine. But what I am saying here is if you look at the NETWORK study, if
you look at the Conference of Mayors study, if you look at the
Conference of State Legislatures study, if you look at the Children's
Defense Fund study, and if you just travel --I am likely to do quite a
bit of travel in the country over the next couple of years to really
take a look at what is happening--but if you just travel and talk to
people, you have reason to be concerned. Right now we do not know and
we cannot remain deliberately ignorant. We cannot do that.
Policy evaluation is important. So I challenge each and every Senator
to please support this amendment which calls for nothing more than
this, that every year when we get a report from the Secretary of Health
and Human Services we get a report on what has happened to these women
and children--that is mainly the population we are talking about--who
no longer receive welfare assistance. Where are they? What kind of jobs
do they have? Are they living-wage jobs? Is there decent child care for
the children? Do they have health care coverage? That is what we want
to know.
I remember in the conference committee last year, and I will not use
names because no one is here to debate me, I remember in a conference
committee meeting last year we got into a debate. I wanted mothers to
at least have 2 years of higher education and have that not counted
against them. I was pushing that amendment. I remember, it was quite
dramatic. In this committee, there were any number of different
Representatives from the House, and some Senators, who said: You are
trying to reopen the whole welfare reform debate and you are trying to
change welfare policy. This has been hallmark legislation, the most
important legislation we passed since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
legislation.
I said to them: Let me ask you a question. Can any of you give me any
data from your States? I know the rolls have been cut substantially.
I hear my own President, President Clinton, talking about this. But,
President Clinton, you have not provided one bit of evidence that
reducing the welfare rolls has led to reduction of poverty. The real
question is not whether or not people are off the rolls; the real
question is, Are they better off? I thought the point of welfare reform
was to move families, mainly women and children, from welfare to
economic self-sufficiency, from welfare to a better life. I thought all
Senators think it is important that people work, but if they work, they
ought not to be poor in America.
We can no longer turn our gaze away from at least being willing to do
an honest evaluation of what is happening. This amendment calls for
that. I cannot see how any Senator will vote against this. I tried to
bring this amendment to the juvenile justice bill. It would have been a
good thing to do, because, frankly, there is a very strong correlation
between poverty and kids getting into trouble and which kids get
incarcerated. I think this piece of legislation is creating a whole new
class of people--disappeared Americans. Many of them are children. That
is my own view.
But as that bill went along, I agreed I would not do it if I could
introduce this amendment to the next piece of legislation, which is the
DOD legislation right now. I hope there will be an up-or-down vote. I
hope there will be strong support for it.
If colleagues want to vote against it--I do not know how you can. We
ought to be willing to do an honest evaluation. I tell my colleagues,
if you travel the country, you are going to see some pretty harsh
circumstances. You are going to see some real harsh circumstances. I do
not remember exactly, and I need to say it this way because if I am
wrong I will have to correct the record, but I think in some States
like Wisconsin that have been touted as great welfare reform States,
and I talked to my colleague, Senator Feingold, about this, and there
is low unemployment so it should work well--I think, roughly speaking,
two-thirds of the mothers and children now have less income than they
did before the welfare bill was passed. That is not success. That is
not success.
Do you all know that in every single State all across the country--
and it depends upon which year, it is up to the State--there is a drop-
dead date certain where families are going to be eliminated from all
assistance? Shouldn't we know, before we do that, before we just toss
people over the cliff--shouldn't we know what is going on? Shouldn't we
have some understanding of whether or not these mothers are able to
find jobs? Shouldn't we know what is going on with their children?
Shouldn't we know whether there are problems with substance abuse or
violence in the homes? Shouldn't we make sure we do that before we
eliminate all assistance and
[[Page 10718]]
create a new class of the disappeared, of the poorest of the poor--of
the poor who are mainly children?
I have brought this amendment to the floor before, but this time
around I do not want a voice vote. I want a recorded vote. If Senators
are going to vote against this, I want that on the record. If they are
going to vote for it, I will thank each and every one of them. Then, if
there is an effort to drop this in conference committee because it is
on the DOD bill, do you know what. Here is what I say: At least the
Senate has gone on the record saying we are going to be intellectually
honest and have an honest policy evaluation. That is all I want. That
is all I want to see happen. If it gets dropped, I will be back with
the amendment again, and again, and again and again--until we have this
study. Until we are honest about being willing--I am sorry--until we
are willing to be honest about what is now happening in the country and
at least collect the data so we can then know.
I feel very strongly about this, colleagues, very strongly about
this. I am going to speak on the floor of the Senate about this. I am
going to do some traveling in the country. I am going to try to focus
on what I consider to be really some very harsh conditions and some
very harsh things that are happening to too many women and to too many
children.
I also speak with some indignation. I can do this in a bipartisan
way. I want us to have this evaluation. I say to the White House, to
the administration--I ask unanimous consent I have 1 more minute. I
actually started at 12:30, so I do not know how I could be out of time.
I had a half hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The official clock up here shows time expired,
but without objection, 1 minute.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I don't want to get into a big
argument with the Chair. I can do it in 1 minute.
I think I have heard the administration, Democratic administration, I
have heard the President and Vice President talk about how we have
dramatically reduced the welfare rolls with huge success. Has the
dramatic reduction in the welfare rolls led to a dramatic reduction in
poverty? Are these women and children more economically self-
sufficient? Are they better off or are they worse off? That is what I
want to know. I say that to Democrats. I say that to Republicans. We
ought to have the courage to call upon the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to provide us with this data. As policymakers, we need
this information.
Please, Senators, support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel J.
Stewart, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor
during the debate on the defense authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15, at which time there will be
three stacked votes.
Thereupon, at 1 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:15 p.m.; whereupon,
the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer
(Mr. Inhofe).
____________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 388
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes
equally divided on the Roth amendment. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, for 58 years, two distinguished commanders,
Admiral Kimmel and General Short, have been unjustly scapegoated for
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Numerous studies have made it
unambiguously clear that Short and Kimmel were denied vital
intelligence that was available in Washington. Investigations by
military boards found Kimmel and Short had properly disposed their
forces in light of the intelligence and resources they had available.
Investigations found the failure of their superiors to properly
manage intelligence and to fulfill command responsibilities contributed
significantly, if not predominantly, to the disaster. Yet, they alone
remain singled out for responsibility. This amendment calls upon the
President to correct this injustice by advancing them on the retired
list, as was done for all their peers.
This initiative has received support from veterans, including Bob
Dole, countless military leaders, including Admirals Moorer, Crowe,
Halloway, Zumwalt, and Trost, as well as the VFW.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the managers of this bill, we
vigorously oppose this amendment. Right here on this desk is perhaps
the most dramatic reason not to grant the request. This represents a
hearing held by a joint committee of the Senate and House of the
Congress of the United States in 1946. They had before them live
witnesses, all of the documents, and it is clear from this and their
findings that these two officers were then and remain today accused of
serious errors in judgment which contributed to perhaps the greatest
disaster in this century against the people of the United States of
America.
There are absolutely no new facts beyond those deduced in this record
brought out by my distinguished good friend, the senior Senator from
Delaware. For that reason, we oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 388. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative 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 52, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--47
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kohl
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The amendment (No. 388) was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 377
Mr. WARNER. Is the Senator from Virginia correct that the next vote
will be on the amendment by the Senator from Kansas?
[[Page 10719]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, amendment No. 377 by the Senator from
Kansas.
Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Kansas and I understand, also, that
our colleague, the ranking member of the committee, likewise supports
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, noting the presence of the Senator from
Kansas, the amendment by the Senator from Kansas raises a very good
point; that is, at the 50th anniversary of the NATO summit, those in
attendance, the 19 nations, the heads of state and government, adopted
a new Strategic Concept.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that that Concept does not
go beyond the confines of the 1949 Washington Treaty and such actions
that took place in 1991 when a new Strategic Concept was drawn.
A number of us are concerned, if we read through the language, that
it opens up new vistas for NATO. If that be the case, then the Senate
should have that treaty before it for consideration. This is a sense of
the Senate, but despite that technicality, it is a very important
amendment; it is one to which the President will respond.
I understand from my distinguished colleague and ranking member, in
all probability, we will receive the assurance from the President that
it does not go beyond the foundations and objectives sought in the 1949
Washington Treaty.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this amendment. It says that the
President should say to us whether or not the new Strategic Concept
imposes new commitments or obligations upon us. It does not find that
there are such new obligations or commitments. The President has
already written to us in a letter to Senator Warner that the Strategic
Concept will not contain new commitments or obligations.
In 1991, the new Strategic Concept, which came with much new language
and many new missions, was not submitted to the Senate. Indeed, much of
the language is very similar in 1991 as in 1999.
In my judgment, there are no new commitments or obligations imposed
by the 1999 Strategic Concept. The President could very readily certify
what is required that he certify by this amendment, and I support it.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be
limited to 10 minutes and the next vote following it to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time has expired.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe that under the order 1 minute was
reserved for anybody in opposition, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes equally divided.
Mr. KYL. I don't think the Senator from Michigan spoke in opposition
to the amendment, as I understand it. Therefore, would it not be in
order for someone in opposition to take a minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from Arizona is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. KYL. Might I inquire of the Senator from Delaware--I am prepared
to speak for 30 seconds or a minute.
Mr. BIDEN. If he can reserve 20 seconds for me, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. KYL. I will take 30 seconds.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both Senators
be given 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that, as Senator Levin
just pointed out, this is a totally unnecessary amendment, because the
administration has already expressed a view that it has not gone beyond
the Concepts this Senate voted for 90 to 9 when the new states were
added to NATO. Those are the Strategic Concepts.
One might argue whether or not they are being applied correctly in
the case of the war in Kosovo. That is another debate. But in terms of
the Strategic Concepts themselves, this body voted on them, and I would
hate for this body now to suggest to the other 18 countries in NATO
that perhaps they should resubmit the Strategic Concepts to their
legislative bodies as in the nature of a treaty so that the entire NATO
agreement on Strategic Concepts would be subject to 19 separate votes
of our parliamentary bodies. I don't think that would be a good idea
given the fact that, as Senator Levin already noted, the President has
already said the Strategic Concepts do not go beyond what the Senate
voted for 90 to 9.
This an unnecessary amendment. I suggest my colleagues vote no.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Strategic Concept does not rise to the
level of a treaty amendment, and the Senator from Michigan has pointed
that out. Therefore, it is a benign amendment, we are told, and in all
probability it is. But it is unnecessary. It does mischief. It sends
the wrong message. It is a bad idea, notwithstanding the fact that it
has been cleaned up to the point that it is clear it does not rise to
the level of a treaty requiring a treaty vote on the Strategic Concept.
But I agree with the Senator from Arizona. He painstakingly on this
floor laid out in the Kyl amendment during the expansion of NATO debate
exactly what we asked the President to consider in the Strategic
Concept that was being negotiated with our allies. They did that. We
voted 90 to 9.
This is a bad idea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--12
Biden
Boxer
Durbin
Hagel
Inouye
Kyl
Lautenberg
Moynihan
Robb
Roth
Smith (OR)
Specter
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The amendment (No. 377), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Amendment No. 382
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the next amendment is in the jurisdiction
of the Finance Committee. Therefore, I have consulted with Chairman
Roth.
Does Senator Roth have any comments on this?
Mr. ROTH. No comments.
Mr. WARNER. We yield back such time as we may have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the
amendment.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
I have been trying to get this amendment on the floor. This is simple
and straightforward. This requires the Department of Health and Human
Services to provide us with a report on the status of women and
children who are
[[Page 10720]]
no longer on welfare. There are 4.5 million fewer recipients. We want
to know what kinds of jobs, at what wages, do people have health care
coverage. This is based on disturbing reports by Family U.S.A.,
Catholic Organization Network, Children's Defense Fund, Conference of
Mayors and, in addition, National Conference of State Legislatures.
Good public policy is good evaluation, and we ought to know what is
going on in the country right now on this terribly important question
that dramatically affects the lives of women and children, albeit low-
income women and children. I hope to get a strong bipartisan vote. It
will be a good message.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Wellstone's
amendment to require states to collect data on the employment, jobs,
earnings, health insurance, and child care arrangements of former
welfare recipients.
This information is essential. The most important indicator of
welfare reform's success is not just declining welfare caseloads. It is
the well-being of these low-income parents and their children after
they leave the welfare system. We do not know enough about how they
have fared, and states should be required to collect this information.
Millions of families have left the welfare rolls, and we need to know
how they are doing now. We need information on their earnings, their
health care, and other vital data. The obvious question is whether
former welfare recipients are doing well, or barely surviving, worse
off than before.
The data we do have about former welfare recipients is not
encouraging. According to a study by the Children's Defense Fund and
the National Coalition on the Homeless, most former welfare recipients
earn below poverty wages after leaving the welfare system. Their
financial hardship is compounded by the fact that many former welfare
recipients do not receive the essential services that would enable them
to hold jobs and care for their children. The cost of child care can be
a crushing expense to low-income families, consuming over one-quarter
of their income. Yet, the Department of Health and Human Services
estimates that only one in ten eligible low-income families gets the
child care assistance they need.
Health insurance trends are also troubling. As of 1997, 675,000 low-
income people had lost Medicaid coverage due to welfare reform.
Children comprise 62 percent of this figure, and many of them were
still eligible for Medicaid. We need to improve outreach to get more
eligible children enrolled in Medicaid. We also need to increase
enrollment in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which
offers states incentives to expand health coverage for children with
family income up to 200 percent of poverty. it is estimated that 4
million uninsured children are eligible for this assistance.
In addition to problems related to child care and health care, many
low-income families are not receiving Food Stamp assistance. Over the
last 4 years, participation in the Food Stamp Program has dropped by
one-third, from serving nearly 28 million participants to serving fewer
than 19 million. But this does not mean children and families are no
longer hungry. Hunger and undernutrition continue to be urgent
problems. According to a Department of Agriculture study, 1 in 8
Americans--or more than 34 million people--are at risk of hunger.
The need for food assistance is underscored by he phenomenon of
increasing reliance on food banks and emergency food services. Many
food banks are now overwhelmed by the growing number of requests they
receive for assistance. The Western Massachusetts Food Bank reports a
dramatic increase in demand for emergency food services. In 1997, it
assisted 75,000 people. In 1998, the number they served rose to 85,000.
Massachusetts is not alone. According to a recent U.S. Conference of
Mayors report, 78 percent of the 30 cities surveyed reported an
increase in requests for emergency food in 1998. Sixty-one percent of
the people seeking this assistance were children or their parents; 31
percent were employed.
These statistics clearly demonstrate that hunger is a major problem.
Yet fewer families are now receiving Food Stamps. One of the unintended
consequences of welfare reform is that low-income, working families are
dropping off the Food Stamps rolls. Often, these families are going
hungry or turning to food banks because they don't have adequate
information about Food Stamp eligibility.
A Massachusetts study found that most people leaving welfare are not
getting Food Stamp benefits, even though many are still eligible. Three
months after leaving welfare, only 18 percent were receiving Food
Stamps. After one year, the percentage drops to 6.5 percent. It is
clear that too many eligible families are not getting the assistance
they need and are entitled to.
Every state should be required to collect this kind of data. We need
better information about how low-income families are faring after they
leave welfare. Adequate data will enable the states to build on their
successes and address their weaknesses. Ultimately, the long-term
success of welfare reform will be measured state by state, person by
person with this data.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Ignorance is not
bliss. We can't afford to ignore the need that may exist.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Is there any Senator who wishes to speak in opposition?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
382. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative 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 49, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The amendment (No. 382) was rejected.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to table was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I have a colleague who is ready to go, Senator Specter, so I will not
take much time. But I just want to make it clear to colleagues that on
this vote I agreed to a time limit. I brought this amendment out to the
floor. There could have been debate on the other side. Somebody could
have come out here and debated me openly in public about this
amendment.
I am talking about exactly what is happening with this welfare bill.
I am
[[Page 10721]]
talking about good public policy evaluation. Shouldn't we at least have
the information about where these women are? Where these children are?
What kind of jobs? What kind of wages? Are there adequate child care
arrangements?
The Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal once said: ``Ignorance is never
random.'' Sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know.
I say to colleagues, given this vote, I am going to bring this
amendment out on the next bill I get a chance to bring it out on. I am
not going to agree to a time limit. I am going to force people to come
out here on the majority side and debate me on this question, and we
will have a full-fledged, substantive debate. We are talking about the
lives of women and children, albeit they are poor, albeit they don't
have the lobbyists, albeit they are not well connected. I am telling
you, I am outraged that there wasn't the willingness and the courage to
debate me on this amendment. We will have the debate with no time
limits next bill that comes out here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I tried to accommodate the Senator early
on on this matter. To be perfectly candid, it was a jurisdictional
issue with this committee. It was not a subject with which this Senator
had a great deal of familiarity. I did what I could to keep our bill
moving and at the same time to accommodate my colleague. The various
persons who have jurisdiction over it were notified, and that is as
much as I can say.
Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes
equally divided in the usual form prior to a motion to table with
respect to amendment 383 and no amendments be in order prior to that
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I further ask that following that vote,
provided it is tabled, that Senator Gramm of Texas be recognized to
make a motion to strike and there be 2 hours equally divided in the
usual form prior to a motion to table and no amendments be in order to
that language proposed to be stricken prior to that vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the only
question I have is that on the second half here, which is the one that
is before us, I suggest that it read ``prior to a motion to table or a
motion on adoption'' so that there is an option as to whether there is
a motion to table or a vote on the amendment itself.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we find no objection to that. I so amend
the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as amended?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I
yield the floor.
Amendment No. 383
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides that:
None of the funds authorized or otherwise available to the
Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the
deployment of ground troops from the United States Armed
Forces in Kosovo, except for peacekeeping personnel, unless
authorized by declaration of war or a joint resolution
authorizing the use of military force.
The purpose of this amendment, obvious on its face, is to avoid
having the United States drawn into a full-fledged war without
authorization of the Congress. This authorization is required by the
constitutional provision which states that only the Congress of the
United States has the authority to declare war, and the implicit
consequence from that constitutional provision that only the Congress
of the United States has the authority to involve the United States in
a war. The Founding Fathers entrusted that grave responsibility to the
Congress because of the obvious factor that a war could not be
successfully prosecuted unless it was backed by the American people.
The first line of determination in a representative democracy, in a
republic, is to have that determination made by the Congress of the
United States.
We have seen the bitter lesson of Vietnam where a war could not be
successfully prosecuted by the United States, where the public was not
behind the war.
This amendment is being pressed today because there has been such a
consistent erosion of the congressional authority to declare war. Korea
was a war without congressional declaration. Vietnam was a war without
a congressional declaration. There was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,
which some said justified the involvement of the United States in
Vietnam--military involvement, the waging of a war. But on its face,
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was not really sufficient.
The Gulf War, authorized by a resolution of both Houses of Congress,
broke that chain of the erosion of congressional authority. In January
of 1991, the Senate and the House of Representatives took up the issue
on the use of force. After a spirited debate on this floor,
characterized by the media as historic, in a 52-47 vote, the Senate
authorized the use of force. Similarly, the House of Representatives
authorized the use of force so that we had the appropriate
congressional declaration on that important matter.
We have seen the erosion of congressional authority on many, many
instances. I shall comment this afternoon on only a few.
We have seen the missile strikes at Iraq really being acts of war. In
February of 1998, I argued on the floor of the Senate that there ought
not to be missile strikes without authorization by the Congress of the
United States. There may be justification for the President to exercise
his authority as Commander in Chief, if there is an emergency
situation, but where there is time for deliberation and debate and
congressional action, that ought to be undertaken.
As the circumstances worked out, missile strikes did not occur in
early 1998, after the indication that the President might authorize or
undertake those missile strikes.
When that again became an apparent likelihood in November of 1998, I
once more urged on the Senate floor that the President not undertake
acts of war with missile strikes because there was ample time for
consideration. There had been considerable talk about it, and that
really should have been a congressional declaration. The President then
did order missile strikes in December of 1998.
As we have seen with the events in Kosovo, the President of the
United States made it plain in mid-March, at a news conference which he
held on March 19 and at a meeting earlier that day with Members of
Congress, that he intended to proceed with airstrikes. At a meeting
with Members of Congress on March 23, the President was asked by a
number of Members to come to Congress, and he did. The President sent a
letter to Senator Daschle asking for authorization by the Senate. In a
context where it was apparent that the airstrikes were going to be
pursued with or without congressional authorization, and with the
prestige of NATO on the line and with the prestige of the United States
on the line, the Senate did authorize airstrikes, specifically
excluding any use of ground troops. That authorization was by a vote of
58 to 41.
The House of Representatives had, on a prior vote, authorized U.S.
forces as peacekeepers, but that was not really relevant to the issue
of the airstrikes. Subsequently, the House of Representatives took up
the issue of airstrikes, and by a tie vote of 213-213, the House of
Representatives declined to authorize the airstrikes. That was at a
time when the airstrikes were already underway.
I supported the Senate vote for the authorization of airstrikes. I
talked to General Wesley Clark, the Supreme NATO Commander. One of the
points which he made, which was telling on this Senator, was the morale
of the troops. The airstrikes were an inevitability, as the President
had determined, and it seemed to me that in that context we ought to
give the authorization, again, as I say, expressly reserving the issue
not to have ground forces used.
So on this state of the record, with the vote by the Senate and with
the tie
[[Page 10722]]
vote by the House of Representatives, you have airstrikes which may
well, under international law, be concluded to be at variance with the
Constitution of the United States, to put it politely and not to
articulate any doctrine of illegality, at a time when my country is
involved in those airstrikes. But when we come to the issue of ground
troops, which would be a major expansion and would constitute, beyond
any question, the involvement of the United States in a war--although
my own view is that the United States is conducting acts of war at the
present time--the President ought to come to the Congress.
When the President met with a large group of Members on Wednesday,
April 28, the issue of ground forces came up and the President made a
commitment to those in attendance--and I was present--that he would not
order ground troops into Kosovo without prior congressional
authorization. He said he would honor that congressional authorization,
reserving his prerogative as President to say that he didn't feel it
indispensable constitutionally that he do so. However, he said that he
would make that commitment, and he did make that commitment to a large
number of Members of the House and Senate on April 28 of this year. He
said, as a matter of good faith, that he would come to the Congress
before authorizing the use of ground troops.
So, in a sense, it could be said that this amendment is duplicative.
But I do believe, as a matter of adherence to the rule of law, that the
commitment the President made ought to be memorialized in this defense
authorization bill. I have, therefore, offered this amendment.
It is a complicated question as to the use of ground forces, whether
they will ever be requested, because unanimity has to be obtained under
the rules that govern NATO. Germany has already said they are opposed
to the use of ground forces. But this is a matter that really ought to
come back to the Congress. I am prepared--speaking for myself--to
consider a Presidential request for authorization for the use of ground
forces. However, before I would vote on the matter, or give my consent
or vote in the affirmative, there are a great many questions I will
want to have answered--questions that go to intelligence, questions
that go to the specialty of the military planners. I would want to know
what the likely resistance would be from the army of the former
Yugoslavia. How much have our airstrikes degraded the capability of the
Serbian army to defend? How many U.S. troops would be involved? I would
like to know, to the extent possible, what the assessment of risk is.
When we talked about invading Japan before the dropping of the atomic
bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had estimates as to how many would
be wounded and how many fatalities there would be. So while not easy to
pass judgment on something that could be at least estimated or
approximated, I would want to know, very importantly, how many ground
troops would be supplied by others in NATO. I would want to know what
the projection was for the duration of the military engagement, and
what the projection was after the military engagement was over.
These are only some of the questions that ought to be addressed. In
16 minutes, at 4 o'clock, members of the administration, the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff are scheduled to give another congressional briefing.
Before we have a vote on a matter of this importance and this
magnitude, those are some of the questions I think ought to be
answered. That, in a very brief statement, constitutes the essence of
the reasons why I have offered this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. He and I are of the same mind in
terms of the authority and responsibility of Congress when it comes to
a declaration of war. It is interesting to note that last year when a
similar amendment was called on the defense appropriation bill, offered
by a gentleman in the House, David Skaggs, only 15 Members of the
Senate voted in favor of it, including the Senator from Pennsylvania,
the Senator from Delaware, myself, and a handful of others. It will be
interesting to see this debate now in the context of a real conflict.
I have seen a copy of this amendment, and I want to understand the
full clarity and intention of the Senator. As I understand it, there
are two paragraphs offered as part of this amendment. They use
different language in each paragraph. I wish the Senator would clarify.
Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond to the Senator, I would be glad to
respond to the questions. I thank him for his leadership in offering a
similar amendment in the past. When I undertook to send this amendment
to the desk, I had called the Senator from Illinois and talked to him
this morning and will consider this a joint venture if he is prepared
to accept that characterization.
Mr. DURBIN. Depending on the responses, I may very well be prepared
to do so.
Would the Senator be kind enough to enlighten me? The first paragraph
refers to the introduction of ground troops. The second paragraph
refers to the deployment of ground troops. Could the Senator tell me,
is there a difference in his mind in the use of those two different
terms?
Mr. SPECTER. Responding directly to the question, I think there would
be no difference. But I am not sure the Senator from Illinois has the
precise amendment I have introduced, which has only one paragraph. I
can read it quickly:
None of the funds authorized or otherwise available to the
Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for
deployment of ground troops from the United States Armed
Forces in Kosovo, except for peacekeeping personnel, unless
authorized by a declaration of war or a joint resolution
authorizing the use of military force.
Mr. DURBIN. The version I have----
Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, I am holding this draft
amendment. You are referring to two paragraphs, and it appears to me
that the first paragraph is the title; am I correct? I find that
inconsistent with what I believe was paragraph 2. The first paragraph
is the title, and there is really only one paragraph in the body of the
amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. If the Senator from
Pennsylvania will yield, I will confine myself to the nature of the
amendment. Could the Senator tell me why reference is only made to the
deployment of grounds troops from U.S. Armed Forces in Kosovo and not
in Yugoslavia?
Mr. SPECTER. The amendment was drafted in its narrowest form. Perhaps
it would be appropriate to modify the amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I think it might be. I ask the Senator a second question.
Would he not want to make an exception, as well, for the rescue of the
NATO forces in Yugoslavia if we would perhaps have a downed flier and
ground troops could be sent in for rescue, and that would not require
congressional authorization. I think that would be consistent with the
Senator's earlier statements about the emergency authority of the
President as Commander in Chief.
Mr. SPECTER. I would be prepared to accept that exception.
Mr. DURBIN. The final question is procedural. The Senator from
Pennsylvania has been here----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to amend it for a downed flier--we just
witnessed ground troops being caught, and they have now been released.
I would be careful in the redrafting and not just to stick to a downed
flier. That is just helpful advice.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. A rescue of NATO forces in Yugoslavia was the question.
Last, I will ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, if this requires a
joint resolution, under the rules of the Senate, Members in a
filibuster, a minority, say, 41 Senators, could stop us from ever
taking action on this measure. How would the Senator from Pennsylvania
respond to that? Does that, in effect, give to a minority the authority
to stop the debate and a vote by the Senate and thereby tie the
President's
[[Page 10723]]
hands when it comes to committing ground troops, should we ever reach
the point where that is necessary?
Mr. SPECTER. I respond to my colleague from Illinois by saying that
with a declaration of war where the Senate has to join under the
Constitution and there could be a filibuster requiring 60 votes, the
same rule applies. To get that authorization, either by declaration of
war or resolution for the use of force, we have to comply with the
rules to get an affirmative vote out of the Senate. Under those rules,
if somebody filibusters, it requires 60 votes. So be it. That is the
rule of the Senate and that is the way you have to proceed to get the
authorization from the Senate.
Mr. DURBIN. I know I am speaking on the Senator's time. I thank him
for responding to those questions. I have reservations, as he does,
about committing ground troops. I certainly believe, as he does, that
the Congress should make that decision and not the President
unilaterally. He has promised to come to us for that decision to be
made. I hope Mr. Milosevic and those who follow this debate don't take
any comfort in this. We are speaking only to the question of the
authority of Congress, not as to any actual decision of whether we will
ever commit to ground troops. I think that is the sense of the Senator
from Pennsylvania. I thank him for offering the amendment, and I
support this important amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will speak in opposition to the
amendment. But I don't wish to interfere with the presentation of the
Senator. At such time, perhaps, when I could start by propounding a few
questions to my colleague and friend, would he indicate when he feels
he has finished his presentation of the amendment?
Mr. SPECTER. It would suit me to have the questions right now.
Mr. WARNER. I remind the Senator of the parliamentary situation.
While I have given him some suggestions, if he is going to amend it, it
would take unanimous consent to amend the amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. To modify the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. WARNER. The time agreement has been presented under the rules. I
will address the question to the Chair. I think that would be best.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to modify the
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Just as a friendly gesture, I advise my colleague of
that.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his
friendly gesture.
Mr. WARNER. As the Senator reads the title and then the text, I have
trouble following the continuity of the two. For example, first it is
directing the President of the United States pursuant to the
Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. I have been here 21 years.
I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is just a year or two shy of
that. This War Powers Resolution has never been accepted by any
President, Republican or Democrat or otherwise. Am I not correct in
that respect?
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Therefore, we would not be precipitating in another one
of those endless debates which would consume hours and hours of the
time of this body if we are acting on the predicate that this President
is now going to acknowledge that he, as President of the United States,
is bound by what is law? I readily admit it is the law. But we have
witnessed, over these 20-plus years that I have been here and over the
years the Senator from Pennsylvania has been here, that no President
will acknowledge that he is subservient to this act of Congress because
he feels that it is unconstitutional; that the Constitution has said he
is Commander in Chief and he has the right to make decisions with
respect to the Armed Forces of the United States on a minute's notice.
Really, this is what concerns me about this amendment, among other
things.
Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield so I can respond to the
question.
Mr. WARNER. All right.
Mr. SPECTER. If it took hours and hours, I think those hours and
hours would be well spent, at least by comparison to what the Senate
does on so many matters. And we might convene a little earlier. We
might adjourn a little later. We might work on Mondays and Fridays and
maybe even on Saturdays. I would not be concerned about the hours which
we would spend.
I think this Senator, after the 18 years and 5 months that I have
been here, has given proper attention to the constitutional authority
of the Congress to declare and/or involve the United States in war, or
to the War Powers Act. This is a matter which first came to my
attention in 1983 on the Lebanon matter when Senator Percy was chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee and I had a debate, a colloquy,
about whether Korea was a war, and Senator Percy said it was. Vietnam
was a war.
At that time, I undertook to draft a complex complaint trying to get
the acquiescence of the President--President Reagan was in the White
House at that time--which Senator Baker undertook to see if we could
have a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of the War
Powers Act.
It is true, as the Senator from Virginia says, that Presidents have
always denied it. They have denied it in complying with it. They send
over the notice called for under the act, and then they put in a
disclaimer.
But I think the War Powers Act has had a profoundly beneficial
effect, because Presidents have complied with it even while denying it.
But I think it is high time that Congress stood up on its hind legs
and said we are not going to be involved in wars unless Congress
authorizes them.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, perhaps when I said hours and hours, it
could be days and days. But we would come out with the same result.
Presidents haven't complied with the act. They have ``complied with the
spirit of the act.'' I believe that is how they have acknowledged it in
the correspondence with the Congress.
Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, I think ``complied with the act''--the
act requires certain notification, certain statements of the President.
They make the statements which the act calls for, and then they add an
addendum, ``but we do not believe we are obligated to do so.''
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me ask another question of my
colleague. We will soon be receiving a briefing from the Secretaries of
State, Defense and the National Security Adviser and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs. I will absent myself during that period, and the
Senator from Pennsylvania will have the opportunity to control the
floor. I hope there would be no unanimous consent requests in my
absence. I hope that would be agreeable with my good friend, because I
have asked for this meeting.
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator may be assured there will be no unanimous
consent requests for any effort to do anything but to play by the
Marquis of Queensberry rules.
Mr. WARNER. That is fine. I asked for this meeting and have arranged
it for the Senate. So I have to go upstairs. But I point out: Suppose
we were to adopt this, and supposing that during the month of August
when the Senate would be in recess the President had to make a decision
with regard to ground troops. Then he would have to, practically
speaking, bring the Congress back to town. Would that not be correct?
Mr. SPECTER. That would be correct. That is exactly what he ought to
do. Before we involve ground troops, the Congress of the United States
could interrupt the recess and come back and decide this important
issue.
Mr. WARNER. But the reason for introducing ground troops, whatever it
may be, might require a decision of less than an hour to make on behalf
of the Chief Executive, the Commander in Chief, and he would be then
shackled with the necessary time of, say, maybe 48 hours in which to
bring the Members of Congress back from various places throughout the
United States and throughout the world. To me, that imposes on the
President something that was never envisioned by the Founding
[[Page 10724]]
Fathers. And that is why he is given the power of Commander in Chief.
Our power is the power of the purse, to which I again direct the
Senator's attention in the text of the amendment. But it seems to me I
find the title in conflict with the text of the amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. As I said during the course of my presentation, Mr.
President, I think the Commander in Chief does have authority to act in
an emergency. I made a clear-cut delineation as I presented the
argument that when there is time for deliberation, as, for example, on
the missile strikes in Iraq, or as, for example, on the gulf war
resolution, it ought to be considered, debated and decided by the
Congress.
Mr. WARNER. How do we define ``emergency?'' Where the President can
act without approval by the Congress, and in other situations where he
must get the approval, who makes that decision?
Mr. SPECTER. I think that our English language is capable of
structuring a definition of what constitutes an emergency.
Mr. WARNER. Where is it found in this amendment?
Mr. SPECTER. I think the President has the authority to act as
Commander in Chief without that kind of specification, and it is not
now on the face of this amendment. However, it may be advisable to take
the extra precaution, with modification offered and agreed to by
unanimous consent in the presence of the Senator from Virginia, to
spell that out as well, although I think unnecessarily so.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I must depart and go upstairs to this
meeting. But I will return as quickly as I can. I thank the Senator for
his courtesy of protecting the floor in the interests of the manager of
the bill.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator is aware that the Senator from Virginia will
at an appropriate time move to table, and in all probability I will
reserve the right to object to this amendment until the Senator from
Pennsylvania seeks to amend the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Members of the
Senate that under the previous order Senator Allard is to be recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Perhaps the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator
from Colorado will work that out between them. I hope they can reach an
accommodation.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may, I understand that the Senator
from Virginia has articulated his views about a unanimous consent, and
that is fine. Those are his rights. But it may be that there will be an
additional amendment which I will file taking into account any
modifications which I might want to make which might be objected to. So
we can work it out in due course.
Parliamentary inquiry: Does the Senator from Colorado have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is to have 20
minutes at 4 o'clock under the previous order. The 20 minutes is on the
amendment, not on the bill.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might clarify the situation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Before the Senator from Pennsylvania specifically advised
me he was going to assert his rights, which he has since his amendment
was the pending business of the Senate following the three votes, I put
in place a modest time slot for our colleague from Colorado, such that
he could address the Senate on the general provisions of the underlying
bill. But then we reached a subsequent time agreement to accommodate
the Senator from Pennsylvania.
It is my request, in the course of this debate, if the Senator could,
within the parameters of the two unanimous consents, work out a
situation where he could have about 15 minutes and then we could return
to your debate?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do not understand that. If you are
asking me to give time----
Mr. WARNER. Not from your time agreement. It would be totally
separate. In other words, your 90 minutes, now the subject of the
second unanimous consent agreement, would be preserved. That is as it
was written. But can the Senator accommodate sliding that to some point
in time to allow the Senator from Colorado to have 15 minutes?
Mr. ALLARD. What is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Senator from Colorado
has the floor for 20 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I would be delighted to accommodate the Senator from
Colorado one way or the other. He can speak now and then we can go back
to our time agreement on the pending amendment.
Mr. ALLARD. I have been waiting. I was here most of the morning and
then waiting this afternoon for 3 hours to have an opportunity to make
some general comments on this bill. I do not anticipate taking much
longer. My agreement is 20 minutes, if I remember correctly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. ALLARD. Maybe there would be an opportunity--I would like to get
in on this meeting Senator Warner is attending at some point in time--
probably the last part of it. But I would like to have the opportunity
to address this bill.
What is it the Senator from Pennsylvania is seeking, as far as the
privilege of the floor?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond, I am delighted to have
the Senator from Colorado use his 20 minutes, which is ordered at this
time.
Mr. WARNER. With no subtraction whatsoever from the unanimous consent
in place for the Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. That is the understanding the Senator had spoken to
earlier.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this point in time, the Senator from
Colorado has the floor for 20 minutes. The Senator is advised, with
regard to the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, 25 minutes
remains for the Senator from Pennsylvania and 38\1/2\ minutes,
approximately, remains for the opposition.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of S. 1059,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
As the Personnel Subcommittee chairman, I take great pleasure in
which Senator Cleland, the ranking member, and the other members of the
subcommittee were able to provide for our men and women in uniform.
Every leader in the military tells me the same thing, without the
people the tools are useless. We must take care of our people and the
personnel provisions in this bill were developed in a bipartisan
manner.
This bill is responsive to the manpower readiness needs of the
military services; supports numerous quality of life improvements for
our service men and women, their families, and the retiree community;
and reflects the budget realities that we face today and will face in
the future.
First, military manpower strength levels. The bill adds 92 Marine
personnel over the administration's request for an active duty end
strength of 1,384,889. It also recommends a reserve end strength of
874,043--745 more than the administration requested.
The bill also modifies but maintains the end-strength floors. While I
do not believe that end-strength floors are a practical force
management tool, I am personally concerned that the strength levels of
the active and reserve forces are too low and that the Department of
Defense is paying other bills by reducing personnel. Therefore, it is
necessary to send a message to the administration that they cannot
permit personnel levels to drop below the minimums established by the
Congress.
On military personnel policy, there are a number of provisions
intended to support the recruiting and retention and personnel
management of the services. Among the most noteworthy, are the several
provisions that permit the services to offer 2-year enlistments with
bonuses and other incentives. This is a pilot program in which students
in college or vocational or technical schools could enlist and remain
[[Page 10725]]
in school for 2 years before they actually go on active duty.
Many Senators have expressed their concerns about the operational
tempo of the military. That is why this bill attempts to address this
problem by requiring the services to closely manage the Personnel and
Deployment Tempo of military personnel. We would require a general or
flag officer to approve deployments over 180 days in a year; a four-
star general or admiral to approve deployments over 200 days and would
authorize a $100 per diem pay for each day a service member is deployed
over 220 days. The briefings and hearings in the personnel subcommittee
have found that the single most cited reason for separation is time
away from home and families. At the same time, the services have not
been effective in managing the Personnel and Deployment Tempo for their
personnel. I am confident that the provision will focus the necessary
attention on the management of this problem.
Another important provision is the expansion of Junior ROTC or JROTC
programs. A number of members and the service Chiefs and personnel
Chiefs told me that they believed Junior ROTC is an important program
and that an expansion was not only warranted but needed. Thus we have
added $39 million to expand the JROTC programs. These funds will permit
the Army to add 114 new schools; the Navy to add 63 new schools; the
Air Force to add 63 new schools; and the Marine Corps to exhaust their
waiting list to 32 schools. This is a total of 272 new JROTC programs
in our school districts across the country. I am proud to be able to
support these important programs that teach responsibility, leadership,
ethics, and assist in military recruiting.
In military compensation, our major recommendations are extracted
from S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of
Rights Act of 1999. First, this bill authorizes a 4.8-percent pay raise
effective January 1, 2000 and a restructuring of the pay tables
effective July 1, 2000.
Another provision includes a Thrift Savings Plan for active forces
and the ready reserves and a plan to offer service members who entered
the service on or after August 1, 1986, the option to receive a $30,000
bonus and remain under the ``Redux'' retirement or to change to the
``High-three'' retirement system. In order to assist the active and
reserve military forces in recruiting, there are a series of bonuses
and new authorities to support the ability of our recruiters to attract
qualified young men and women to serve in the armed forces. There are
also several new bonuses and special pays to incentivize aviators,
surface warfare officers, special warfare officers, air crewmen among
others to remain on active duty. Two additional provisions from S. 4
are in this bill. A special retention initiative would permit a service
secretary to match the thrift savings contribution of service members
in critical specialties in return for an extended service commitment.
Also, thanks to the hard work of Senator McCain and Senator Roberts,
another provision authorizes a special subsistence allowance for junior
enlisted personnel who qualify for food stamps.
In health care, there are several key recommendations. There is a
provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to implement a
number of initiatives to improve delivery of health care under TriCare.
Another provision would require each Lead Agent to establish a patient
advocate to assist beneficiaries in resolving problems they may
encounter with TriCare.
Finally there are a number of general provisions including one to
enforce the reductions in management headquarters personnel Congress
directed several years ago and several to assist the Department of
Defense Dependents School System to provide quality education for the
children of military personnel overseas.
Before I close, as a first time Senator subcommittee chair, I express
my appreciation to Senator Cleland for his leadership and assistance
throughout this year as we worked in a bipartisan manner to develop
programs which enhance personnel readiness and quality of life
programs. I also thank the members of the subcommittee, Senator
Thurmond, Senator McCain, Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, and Senator
Reed, and their staffs. Their hard work made our work better and helped
me focus on those issues which have the greatest impact on soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines.
Mr. President, I finish by thanking Chairman Warner for the
opportunity to point out some of the highlights in the bill which the
Personnel Subcommittee has oversight and to congratulate him and
Senator Levin on the bipartisan way this bill was accomplished and ask
that all Senators strongly support S. 1059.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is under control. If neither side
yields time, time will simply run equally.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. The Senator from Delaware is here and I
will be happy to yield--how much time do the opponents have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents of the amendment have 38 minutes
and approximately 10 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Is that divided in some way or under the control of
Senator Warner and myself? How is that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill is designated to be in
charge of the opposition.
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be necessarily brief.
It is not often I disagree with my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator
Specter. I think he is right in the fundamental sense that if the
President is going to send American ground forces into a war, it needs
congressional authority.
Very honestly, this amendment is, in my view, flawed. First of all,
it is clear that the President has to come to Congress to use ground
forces and that the President has already stated--I will ask unanimous
consent to print in the Record a copy of his letter dated April 28,
1999, to the Speaker of the House in which he says in part:
Indeed, without regard to our differing constitutional
views on the use of force, I would ask for Congressional
support before introducing U.S. ground forces into Kosovo
into a non-permissive environment.
I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, April 28, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the opportunity to continue
to consult closely with the Congress regarding events in
Kosovo.
The unprecedented unity of the NATO Members is reflected in
our agreement at the recent summit to continue and intensify
the air campaign. Milosevic must not doubt the resolve of the
NATO alliance to prevail. I am confident we will do so
through use of air power.
However, were I to change my policy with regard to the
introduction of ground forces, I can assure you that I would
fully consult with the Congress. Indeed, without regard to
our differing constitutional views on the use of force, I
would ask for Congressional support before introducing U.S.
ground forces into Kosovo into a non-permissive environment.
Milosevic can have no doubt about the resolve of the United
States to address the security threat to the Balkans and the
humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. The refugees must be allowed
to go home to a safe and secure environment.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, not only must the President, but he said he
would.
This amendment is flawed in two respects. First, as a constitutional
matter, I believe it is unnecessary. The Constitution already bars
offensive military action by the President unless it is congressionally
authorized or under his emergency powers.
[[Page 10726]]
The Senate resolution we adopted only authorizes the use of airpower.
If Congress adopts this amendment, it seems to me we will imply the
President has carte blanche to take offensive action, and anywhere else
unless the Congress makes a specific statement to the contrary in
advance. In short, I think it will tender an invitation to Presidents
in the future to use force whenever they want unless Congress provides
a specific ban in advance.
Putting that aside, however, the amendment is flawed because its
exceptions are much too narrowly drawn. The amendment purports to bar
the use of Armed Forces in response to an attack against Armed Forces.
For example, we have thousands of soldiers now in Albania and
Macedonia. Let's suppose the Yugoslav forces launch an attack against
U.S. forces in Albania or in Macedonia. This amendment would bar the
use of ground forces to respond by going into Kosovo.
The power to respond against such an attack is clearly within the
power of the Commander in Chief. So, too, does the President have the
power to launch a preemptive strike against an imminent attack. The
U.S. forces do not have to wait until they take the first punch.
The second point I will make in this brief amount of time I am taking
is that the amendment does not appear to permit the use of U.S. forces
in the evacuation of Americans. Most constitutional scholars concede
the President has the power to use force in emergency circumstances to
protect American citizens facing an imminent and direct threat to their
lives.
In sum, notwithstanding the fact that my colleague from Pennsylvania
is going to amend his own amendment, it does not, in my view, appear to
be necessary and it unconstitutionally restricts recognized powers of
the President.
This comes from a guy--namely me--who has spent the bulk of the last
25 years arguing that the President has to have congressional authority
to use force in circumstances such as this, and he does. But to bar
funds in advance, before a President even attempts to use ground
forces, in the face of him saying he will not use them and in the face
of a letter in which he says he will not send them without seeking
Congress' authority, seems to me to not only be constitutionally
unnecessary but sends an absolutely devastating signal to Mr. Milosevic
and others.
For example, I, for one, have been encouraging the Secretary of
Defense, our National Security Adviser, and the President of the United
States to get about the business of prepositioning right now the 50,000
forces they say will be needed in a permissive environment. That is an
environment where there is a peace agreement. If tomorrow peace broke
out in Yugoslavia, if Mr. Milosevic yielded to the demands of NATO,
there would be chaos in Kosovo because there would be no force to put
in place in order to ensure the agreement.
I worry that an amendment at this moment not only is unnecessary but
would send a signal to suggest that we should not even be
prepositioning American forces for deployment in a peaceful
environment. I think it is unnecessary.
I thank the Chair for his indulgence and my colleague for the time. I
oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Before the distinguished Senator from Delaware leaves
the floor, if I may have his attention. I say to Senator Biden, may I
have your attention?
Mr. BIDEN. Surely.
Mr. SPECTER. The arguments which you have made stem from your stated
position that the President really ought to have congressional
authorization to use force. If the legislative approach is not to
require him to come to Congress before the use of force, but to await
his using force, then are we not really in a situation where we face
the impossible predicament of seeking to cut off funds from the middle
of a military operation which is untenable? Or to articulate the
question more precisely: What would you suggest as a way to accomplish
the constitutional principle you agree with, that only the Congress has
the authority to authorize the use of force, with the current
circumstances?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if I may respond, I think that is a fair
question. I think I, quite frankly and bluntly, accomplished that. The
way I did that--the Senator was in that same meeting. We were in the
same meeting. I think it was the 28th, you said. I do not remember the
exact date.
Mr. SPECTER. It was.
Mr. BIDEN. He may recall that I am the one who stood up and said: Mr.
President, you do not have the authority to send in ground troops
without congressional authorization. Since you have said, Mr.
President, you have no intention of doing that, why don't you
affirmatively send a letter to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives committing that you will not do that without their
authority? He said: I will. And he did. I think we accomplished that.
To now say that we are going to add to that the requirement to cut
off funds, that we will cut off funds, is a very direct way of saying:
We don't trust you, Mr. President. You gave your word; you put it in
writing; you put your signature on it; and we still don't trust you.
I am not prepared to vote for that.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would disagree with the statement of my
colleague from Delaware that we say, ``we do not trust you, Mr.
President,'' by noting that the President might change his mind. He has
been known to do that. Other Presidents have, and even the Senator from
Delaware and the Senator from Pennsylvania have been known to change
their minds.
The other concern is that if you have it on a personal basis, in a
letter, it really does not have the force of law. And we are
consistently moving in the Congress to where there has been an
executive order, which is a good bit more formal than the letter that
the Senator from Delaware refers to, to make sure that it is governed
by law as opposed to a personal commitment or what might be said.
But let me articulate a question in a different context.
Aside, hypothetically, absent a letter, what would the legislative
approach be to limit a President from exercising his powers as
Commander in Chief short of cutting off funds once he has already done
so? It seems to me that we have a choice. We can either say in advance:
You may not do it unless you have our prior approval; or say nothing
once the President uses force, and then cut off the funds, which
appears to me to be untenable.
Is there a third alternative?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes, Mr. President. I think there is. If I may respond.
There are several. There is a third and a fourth alternative. One of
the alternatives would be, were the resolution merely to say: Mr.
President, by concurrent resolution, we believe you do not have the
authority to put ground troops in place without our authorization; we
expected that you would request of us that authorization before you
did, that would create an incredibly difficult political barrier for
any President to overcome. It would not be an advance cutoff of funds.
I do not recall where we have in advance--in advance of a President
taking an action--told him that we would limit the availability of
funds for an action he says he has not contemplated undertaking in
advance. I think it is a bad way to conduct foreign policy. I think it
complicates the circumstance. It sends, at a minimum, a conflicting
message. At a minimum, it sends the message to Europe, for example, and
our allies, that we, the U.S. Congress, think the President is about to
send American forces in when he has not said he wishes to do that.
Secondly, it says in advance, to our enemies, that the President
cannot send in ground forces unless he undoes an action already taken,
giving an overwhelming prejudice to the point of
[[Page 10727]]
view that the President could never get the support to use ground
forces.
I understand my friend from Pennsylvania--and I have said this
before, and I mean it sincerely, there is no one in this body I respect
more than him, but he has indicated that he would be amenable to a
consideration of the use of ground forces, if asked. But I suspect that
is not how this will be interpreted in not only Belgrade but other
parts of the world. I think it will be interpreted as the Senate saying
they do not want ground troops to be put in under any circumstances.
That is not what he is saying. But that is, I believe, how it will be
interpreted.
So let me sum up my response to the Senator's question: A, we could,
in fact, say to the President: Mr. President, if you are going to use
ground forces, come and ask us, with no funds cut off in terms of a
resolution.
Secondly, we could say to the President: Mr. President, we have your
letter in hand. We take you at your word and expect that that is what
you would do, memorializing the political context in which this
decision was made, which Presidents are loath to attempt to overcome.
The bottom line is, the President of the United States can in fact go
ahead and disregard this as easily as he could disregard the provisions
of the Constitution. If a President were going to decide that he would
disregard the constitutional requirement of seeking our authority to
use ground forces, I respectfully suggest he would not be at all
hesitant to overcome a prohibition in an authorization bill saying no
funds authorized here could be used.
He could argue that funds that have already been authorized have put
force in place, with bullets in their guns, gasoline in their tanks,
fuel in their aircraft; that he has the authority to move
notwithstanding this prohibition.
I understand the intention of my friend from Pennsylvania. I applaud
it. I think it is unnecessary in a very complex circumstance and
situation in which the President of the United States has indicated he
does not intend to do it anyway. And I just think it sends all the
wrong messages and is unnecessary and is overly restrictive.
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Delaware has mentioned a third option
to the two I suggested.
The third option is for us to send a resolution saying don't do it
unless we authorize it, but not binding him. Saying that would
certainly impose a political restraint on the President--not doing it,
in the face of our requesting him not to without our prior
authorization. I understand his third alternative, but I do not draw
much solace from it, just as a matter of my own response.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator would yield, I am not suggesting----
Mr. SPECTER. My time is running out. Let me finish my statement. Then
you have quite a bit of time left. Let me just finish the thought.
I do not think it goes far enough to say: We request that you not do
it unless we give you prior authorization. Because that kind of a
gentle suggestion--and I can understand the gentility of my colleague
from Delaware--would not go very far, I think, with this President or
might not go very far with the Senator from Delaware or would not
predetermine what the Senator from Pennsylvania would do.
When the Senator from Delaware talks about the President flying in
the face of a cutoff of funds, I think that the President would be
loath to do that. I think there he might really get into the Boland
amendment or challenging the Congress on the power of the purse.
The Presidents have gotten away with disregarding the congressional
mandate that only Congress can declare war. They have gotten away with
it for a long time. It has been eroded. Presidents feel comfortable in
doing that. But if the Congress said: No funds may be used, as this
amendment does--maybe it needs to be a little tighter here or there--I
think the President would proceed at his peril to violate that
expressed constitutional authority in Congress to control the power of
the purse. I am very much interested in my colleague's response, but I
hope it will be on his time.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield me 2
minutes?
Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield. May I inquire of the Chair how
much time the opponents have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-two minutes 11 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and I had an
amendment to attempt to preauthorize the use of ground forces. The
Congress debated, as the Parliamentarian can tell us, in the context of
the War Powers Act, having been triggered by a letter sent by the
President to the Congress.
We have already spoken. We have already spoken as a Congress. We have
made it clear to the President of the United States, unfortunately, in
my view, that under the War Powers Act, we believe he should not at
this moment be introducing ground forces because the McCain-Biden
amendment was defeated, which was an affirmative attempt to give him
authority in advance to use ground forces. So we have already debated
this issue of ground forces in the context of the War Powers Act, which
was one of the two documents cited by the Senator from Pennsylvania,
the other being the U.S. Constitution. I argue we have done that.
Second, I point out that I can't imagine a modern-day President, in
the face of an overwhelming or even majority congressional decision,
saying you should not use force and having the political will or
courage to go ahead and use it anyway. I do not think such a
circumstance exists. If you think this President is likely to do that,
then you have a view of his willingness to take on the Congress that
exceeds that of almost anyone I know.
The idea that this President, in this context, having said so many
times that he would not and does not want to use ground forces, would
fly in the face of a majority of the Members of the Congress saying he
should not do it without coming here, in what everyone would
acknowledge would be a difficult political decision to make in any
instance and difficult military decision to make, and then if, in fact,
he is not immediately successful, I believe everyone in this Chamber
would acknowledge that it would probably effectively bring this
Presidency down. I just can't imagine that being the matter.
Let me conclude by saying, Professor Corwin is credited with having
said that the Constitution merely issues an invitation to the President
and the Senate does battle over who controls the foreign policy. Seldom
will Presidents take action that is totally contrary to the expressed
views of the Congress which risk American lives and clearly would
result in American body bags coming home.
I wish he had a view different than the one I am asserting, because I
think we need to have that option open and real. I am not sure it is. I
am almost positive there is no reasonable prospect this President, or
for that matter the last President, would have moved in the face of the
Congress having already stated its views that it was not willing to
give him that power in advance, which is another way of saying: Mr.
President, if you want this power, come and ask us.
So I think it is unnecessary. I think it is redundant. I think it has
already been spoken to as it relates to the War Powers Act. I think it
is a well-intended, mistaken notion as to how we should be limiting
this President's use of ground forces.
I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding me that time.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for
those comments. I think it all boils down to whether the President
would feel compelled by a political situation, a statement by Congress,
to not send in ground troops.
I acknowledged in my opening comments that he had made that
commitment, which I heard and spoke about, on April 28. But I believe
we ought to be bound by the rule of law, not be dependent upon a change
of mind by the
[[Page 10728]]
President, and memorialize it in this statute. Congress ought to assert
its authority to declare war and have the United States engaged in war
and to do it with the force of law with this kind of an amendment,
perhaps somewhat modified.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. It would send the
worst possible signal, I believe, to Milosevic at this time. A kind of
``don't worry'' signal, if you weather the storm, no matter how
weakened your military is, the President isn't going to be able to go
in even in a semipermissive environment in order to return the
refugees, because Congress has tied his hands, tied the purse to say
that only if Congress affirmatively approves the expenditure of funds,
then and only then could ground forces go in, even in a semipermissive
environment.
Mr. President, how much time do the opponents have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-seven and a half minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 6 minutes.
I can't think of a worse signal to send to Milosevic in the middle of
a conflict than this amendment would send to him. Congressional
gridlock is not unheard of around here. We have plenty of examples of
Congress being unable to act. We had a recent example in the House
where the House could not even agree to support an air campaign that is
presently going on, a tie vote.
Under this funding cutoff approach, that air campaign presumably
would not be able to continue under a comparable resolution applying to
the use of military forces.
I know this only applies to ground forces and not to an air campaign,
but that vote in the House of Representatives is a wonderful example of
how Milosevic, when he looked at this resolution, would say, well, gee,
this would require Congress to affirmatively act, and since the House
can't even get a majority to act to support an ongoing operation, I
could comfortably rely, he would say to himself, on the fact that they
would never authorize in advance a ground campaign, even in a
semipermissive environment.
The President has been criticized for taking the possibility of
ground troops off the table. The argument is that Milosevic doesn't
have to worry as much about that possibility, given the position of the
administration. I think we ought to want Milosevic to worry and to
worry more, not less. This is a ``worry less'' amendment, not a ``worry
more'' amendment. This says Congress would have to affirmatively
approve ground forces in advance, even in a semipermissive environment,
and it seems to me Milosevic could quite comfortably say to himself
that is not a very strong likelihood.
There are a lot of practical problems with the wording of this
amendment. For instance, what happens if U.S. intelligence discovered
that American forces in Albania or in Macedonia were about to be
attacked by Yugoslav army forces and it was determined to be necessary
for U.S. ground forces to conduct a preemptive attack into Kosovo in
self-defense? We are just about ready to be attacked; can we hit the
attacker? Not under this amendment. You have to come to Congress first.
Our military would be told, whoops, you are about to be attacked in
Albania or Macedonia, but Congress passed a law saying they have to
authorize the use of ground forces. Do we want to tie the hands of our
commanders that way in the middle of a conflict, to tell our commanders
that even in circumstances where they think they are about to be hit
that they cannot preemptively go after the attackers in Kosovo with
ground forces? They have to then just take it on the chin?
And what if U.S. forces in Albania or Macedonia were attacked by
Yugoslav army forces, actually attacked in Macedonia or Albania. Would
counterattacking U.S. forces have to stop at the Kosovo border, thereby
giving the Yugoslav army a haven from which they could conduct ground
attacks across the border but not be pursued by American ground forces?
The commander would have to stop at the border and come to Congress? So
it is the worst kind of signal we could give in the middle of a
conflict to Mr. Milosevic, and it creates burdens on our commanders
that are intolerable in the middle of a conflict.
We have been advised by the Department of Defense on this amendment
that ``it is so restrictive of U.S. operations and so injurious to our
role in the alliance that the President's senior advisers would
strongly recommend that the final bill be vetoed if this language is
included in the bill.'' That is information we have just received from
the Department of Defense.
Gridlock. Fifty votes in the House. Now, under this amendment, we
have to affirmatively approve something. What happens if a majority of
us want to approve it but we are filibustered? The Senator from
Pennsylvania said, well, those are the rules.
Those are the rules. But under his amendment, it would mean that even
if a majority of the Senate wanted to give approval to ground forces, a
minority in the Senate could thwart that action.
I think this is the kind of tying of our hands in the middle of a
conflict that would tell Milosevic this country is not serious about
the NATO mission. This NATO mission is so critical in terms of the
future of Europe; it is so critical in terms of the stability not only
of Europe but of the North Atlantic community that for us to adopt
language that in advance says you can't do something without Congress
acting, knowing, as we do, how difficult it is to get Congress to act
even in the middle of a conflict, would be simply a terrible result for
the success of our mission.
Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may continue.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we want, I hope, to do two things. One is
to tell the President, as we have, how important it is that there be
consultation and that he seek support from the Congress, and he has
committed to do so. But that is a very different thing from what this
amendment provides. This is an advance funding cutoff, unless something
happens that can be thwarted by gridlock.
We should not ever forget the likelihood of gridlock in this
Congress. Even if a majority wanted to support the use of ground forces
in a nonpermissive environment, a minority of the Senate could thwart
that majority view. I believe the signal to Milosevic that he will be
the beneficiary of gridlock, and only if gridlock can be overcome would
he then have to fear the possibility of the use of ground forces, is a
signal that would undermine the current mission in a very significant
way.
Again, reading from the information paper the Department of Defense
has shared with us this afternoon:
The Department strongly opposes this amendment because it
would unacceptably put at risk the lives of U.S. and NATO
military personnel, jeopardize the success of Operation
Allied Force, and inappropriately restrict the President's
options as Commander in Chief.
These are now the words of the information paper shared with us by
the Department:
. . . effectively give Milosevic advance notice of ground
action by NATO forces, should NATO commanders request
consideration of this option.
While we have made no decision to use ground forces in a
nonpermissive environment, it would be a mistake to hamstring this
option with a legislative requirement for prior congressional approval.
The Department says:
This would be construed to prohibit certain intelligence or
reconnaissance operations essential to a successful
prosecution of Operation Allied Force. It would prohibit any
preemptive attack by U.S. forces based on advance warning or
suspicion of an impending attack by the Yugoslav forces. It
would prohibit U.S. ground personnel from pursuing those
forces, conducting hit and run, or similar attacks across
international boundaries.
But the words that we should pay the most heed to in this memorandum
from the Department of Defense--the words that I hope this Senate will
think very carefully about before we consider adopting this amendment--
are that the Department strongly opposes amendment No. 383 because it
would
[[Page 10729]]
``unacceptably put at risk the lives of U.S. and NATO military
personnel and jeopardize the success of Operation Allied Force.''
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in listening to the comments of the
Senator from Michigan, every single objection and argument he has
raised applies equally to the President's commitment by letter to come
to the Congress before he would use ground forces.
When he says it would be the worst signal to Milosevic, the President
gave that signal personally when he said it gives Milosevic advance
notice. That is exactly what the President would be doing in coming to
Congress. When he says there could be no intelligence or
reconnaissance, that is exactly what would happen by the President's
commitment. When he says it would preclude a preemptive strike, that is
exactly what the President has done. When he says it puts at risk U.S.
military personnel, that is precisely what the President has done.
When they talk about a veto, it is the same old threat--senior
advisers threatening to veto. I think this may be a better amendment
than I had originally contemplated.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the opponents have how much time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 16 minutes 44 seconds. The
proponents have 11 minutes.
Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for what he is
trying to do with his amendment, to protect the prerogatives of the
Senate and the requirements of the War Powers Resolution with respect
to the actions of our armed services abroad. Although I understand it
may be modified, I think I will be able to support this amendment. I
share the Senator's commitment to protecting the war powers granted to
the Congress by the Founding Fathers and reaffirmed in the War Powers
Resolution.
That said, I hope that, should this amendment be adopted, the
conferees will make an effort to better define the term
``peacekeeping,'' for which the Senator has made an exception in his
amendment. I believe that all military deployments, subject to the
exceptions laid out in the War Powers Resolution including peacekeeping
operations, should receive authorization of the Congress. And, since
there currently is no peace to keep in Kosovo--and in fact NATO
continues air strikes to this day--I hope that the Congress will define
the parameters of such an exception more specifically.
Mr. President, today is May 25, 1999, and in the context of the
Senator's amendment I want to take the opportunity to remind the Senate
of the significance of today's date.
Exactly 62 days ago, U.S. forces, as part of a NATO force, began air
strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Today marks the expiration of the 60-day time period after which the
President--under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution--is
required to withdraw our Armed Forces from their participation in the
air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Exactly 60 days ago--48 hours after the air strikes began--the
President was required under section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers
Resolution to submit a detailed report to the Congress regarding the
actions he ordered our troops to take.
No such report has been submitted. Rather, the Congress was notified
of the U.S. participation in the NATO air strikes by a letter from the
President that he says is--``consistent''--with the War Powers
Resolution.''
``Consistent'' or not, I do not believe that the President's letter
satisfies the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Nevertheless,
in my view, the War Powers Resolution stands as the law of the land,
and the President should comply with it. So it follows, then, that if
the President fails to withdraw our troops by midnight tonight--and of
course it is clear that they will remain in the region long after the
clock strikes twelve--the President will be in violation of the
provisions of the War Powers Resolution.
I find it disturbing that this important date of May 25 will come and
go with no action to remove our troops from the region. Indeed, I am
afraid that this Congress is ignoring the significance of this date
completely. In fact, I am not sure that the significance of this date
has been noted by any of my colleagues during debate on this Specter
amendment.
The War Powers Resolution provides that the President shall terminate
the use of our Armed Forces for the purpose outlined in the report
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act after 60 days unless one of
the three things has happened:
The Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization
for the use of the military; the Congress has extended by law the 60-
day time period; or the President is not able to withdraw the forces
because of an armed attack against the United States.
In addition, the President may extend this time period by 30-days if
he certifies in writing to the Congress that it is unsafe to withdraw
the forces at the end of the 60 days.
Sixty days have come and gone, Mr. President, and none of these
things has happened.
The Congress has not declared war, nor has it authorized this action.
The Congress has not extended the 60-day time period.
The United States has not been attacked.
The President has not certified in writing to the Congress that an
additional 30 days are necessary to ensure the safe withdrawal of our
troops.
As my colleagues know, I voted against the ongoing NATO air strikes
against the FRY, and I am deeply troubled that U.S. participation in
them continues despite the fact that Congress was divided on whether to
authorize them. In addition, the resolution which this body adopted and
on which the other body deadlocked was not a joint resolution that
would have authorized the military action, by law.
No, Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 21 is a sense-of-the-Congress
resolution that does not carry the force of law.
The Senate also considered a joint resolution offered by the Senator
from Arizona [Mr. McCain] which, if adopted by both Houses of Congress,
would have given the President the specific statutory authorization
required under the War Powers Resolution to continue the use of our
Armed Forces in the action against the FRY. In fact, Mr. President,
that sweeping resolution would have allowed the President to expand
this participation as he saw fit. While I opposed this resolution, I am
pleased that the Senate debated it and voted on it as we unequivocally
were obliged to do under the War Powers Resolution.
I am afraid that the debate and votes on the participation of the
United States in Kosovo both here in the Senate, as well as in the
other body, reflect the fact that there is no consensus in the Congress
or in the country with regard to what we have already done in Kosovo,
let alone a consensus on whether to expand the U.S. mission there.
Sixty days have come and gone since the President failed to submit
the required report regarding U.S. participation in the air strikes
against the FRY. Despite this regrettable inaction, the War Powers
Resolution clock began to tick 48 hours after the first bombs fell--the
date on which the President's report under section 4(a)(1) of the Act
was required to have been submitted. That's right, Mr. President, the
clock begins to tick whether the President fulfills his obligation to
submit the report or not. The vitality of the War Powers Resolution is
unmistakable because that law states that the troops must be removed
``. . . within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted
[[Page 10730]]
or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1). . . .''
unless one of the actions I mentioned earlier has occurred.
As the clock draws closer to midnight today, the sixtieth day, our
troops are performing admirably under hostile conditions. But time has
almost run out on the President to fulfil this legal obligations under
the War Powers Resolution.
Despite the fact that many in Congress oppose the current air
campaign, and despite the fact that our troops will soon be
participating in this campaign in violation of the War Power
Resolution, members of this body last week adopted a massive spending
package in support of a military action that many of them oppose. I
support fully our efforts to give our men and women in the field
everything they need to maximize their chances of success and to
minimize the risks they face.
Still, I voted against that package, both because of my continuing
concern over our unauthorized military involvement in the FRY and
because of the non-emergency spending that was jammed into the so-
called emergency bill.
So we are not at a critical juncture, Mr. President. The Congress has
voted to fund a military mission that it has not authorized, and the
President has signed this bill even though he knows, as we know, that
the continued participation of our troops in this mission is in
violation of the War Powers Resolution.
One way or the other, consistent with the safety of our troops, it is
time for the President to comply with the War Powers Resolution by
seeking--and gaining--the legal authorization of Congress to continue
this war, or by withdrawing our forces.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to read the
letter from the President to the Speaker. It goes far short of the kind
of commitment that has been represented--honestly represented. But the
letter says in pertinent part: ``I can assure you that I will fully
consult with the Congress'', which doesn't amount to a whole lot. And
then another line, ``I would ask for congressional support before
introducing U.S. ground forces into Kosovo into a nonpermissive
environment''.
The language of support here again goes far short of committing to
congressional authorization such as is contained in this amendment.
I yield the floor.
I ask how much time I have left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on that point, we have been conducting a
meeting for almost an hour in S-407, attended by the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Adviser to
the President, Mr. Berger, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. In the
course of their presentations to some 40-plus Senators, in response to
questions and in direct presentation, they reiterated that the
President will formally come before the Congress and ask for any
changes he deems necessary involving ground troops before he would
implement or agree to implement with other NATO nations such a plan.
That has just been stated on two occasions up in S-407. There was no
equivocation. It was very clear in their declaration on behalf of the
President. I acquainted them with the amendment which is now being
debated on the floor of the Senate.
Earlier indications from the Secretary of Defense to me today were
that should this amendment as drawn now appear in a conference report,
it would be the recommendation of the Secretaries of State and Defense
to veto.
I am pointing out to the Senate that again we revisit many, many
times this whole war powers concept. We acknowledge that both
Republican Presidents and Democrat Presidents have absolutely
steadfastly refused to comply with the letter of the law, but they have
complied with the spirit of the law.
In this instance, the President has indicated to the Senate in that
letter--and just now in the briefings by his principal Cabinet
officers--that he would formally--I use the word ``formal'' to
clarify--come to the Congress and request their concurrence for any
departure from his preposition. That preposition was just moments ago
restated by Secretaries Cohen and Albright in response to my question,
which was, question No. 1, to allow me to return to the floor with
regard to any nonpermissive force being put in place, which I favor, by
the way, to send a signal. They said that would not be done. The
President has no intention of doing it, nor do the NATO allies. And
should the President decide at some later date, for whatever reason, to
begin to preposition such forces, then he would come before the
Congress prior thereto and get legislative approval.
I believe very strongly that this amendment would put this bill in
severe jeopardy in terms of getting it signed, and that the President
and his principal advisers have in the past and again today advised the
Congress that the President is prepared to deal with the spirit of this
amendment and to come before the Congress and seek its formal
concurrence by legislative action should he and other NATO allies in
the future make a decision to depart from the present policy.
I have just been handed a modification. It is one that the Senator
from Pennsylvania and I have discussed. I don't know if my colleague
has had an opportunity to see it.
If there are other Senators who wish to speak, I need time within
which to consider this modification. Unless other Senators seek
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who
yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator 3 or 4 minutes.
Mr. ROBB. I thank my distinguished senior colleague. One minute will
be sufficient because I know the chairman of the committee is about to
make a unanimous consent request.
I state to my good friend from Pennsylvania, I am very much opposed
to this amendment. I cannot imagine a modification of this amendment
that would cause me to be supportive. We have already debated this
essential question twice.
Congress has the power to declare war. If we are concerned about
consultation with the executive branch, as we speak consultation is
taking place up in S-407 in a classified briefing where the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been briefing all
Senators on what is taking place, what has taken place, what will take
place and have again reaffirmed the intention of the President to
consult with the Congress before any change, particularly with respect
to the implementation of any particular plan that might involve the
commitment of ground troops, takes place.
With that, Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to look very seriously
at the long-term implications. Think of the kind of message this sends
to Milosevic. Think of the kind of message this sends to our 18
alliance partners, if we were to continue to try to take this type of
action on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, I urge a rejection of this particular amendment and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that strong
statement. I am certainly of the same view.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when all time is used on
the pending Specter amendment, the amendment be temporarily set aside
with a vote occurring on or in relation
[[Page 10731]]
to the amendment--there will be a tabling motion.
Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator repeat
that?
Mr. WARNER. Let me repeat it in its entirety. I have not asked
unanimous consent.
I ask unanimous consent that when all time is used on the pending
Specter amendment, the amendment be temporarily set aside with a vote
occurring on or in relation to the amendment following the debate on
the Gramm amendment.
That is the time sequence. As I have indicated, I will move to table
the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. For the information of all Senators, the Gramm amendment
will be presented with a 1\1/2\-hour time agreement. Following that
debate, the Senate will proceed to two stacked votes, first on the
Specter amendment--and we have to reserve in here the amending of that
amendment, which could be amended--to be followed by a vote on the
Gramm amendment.
So we just have the sequencing of the debate, sequencing of the
votes. And we will momentarily, Senator Levin and I--I am prepared to
accept the amendment as amended. The Senator is waiting for just one
Senator to get concurrence.
So we have the unanimous consent in place. I have given information
to the Senate with respect to the sequencing of the Gramm amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I ask my colleague from
Virginia to insert 2 minutes on each side to argue in advance of the
vote.
Mr. WARNER. I have certainly no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Is there objection to
the request as modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Senators yield back their time on the
pending amendment? Who yields time on the pending amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, does Senator Specter want to reserve his
time, and I will reserve my time, and then we can proceed to the Gramm
amendment and come back to Senator Specter's amendment? I am sure he
will allow that.
Mr. SPECTER. That is agreeable. We will take up the Gramm amendment
now and then come back with the time I have reserved at that time.
Mr. WARNER. And the time under the control of the Senator from
Virginia, jointly shared with Senator Levin.
Mr. SPECTER. May the Record show I have made a request for a
modification of the amendment and I will send a copy of the requested
modification to the desk. I have already provided it to the Senator
from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the
time?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object and we will have to object--
--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Modifying the time?
Mr. LEVIN. The Chair just asked if there is objection to the
modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Modification of the time. Is there objection
to the modification? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, just so everybody can figure out when we
are likely to vote, how much time remains on the Specter amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 5\1/2\
minutes, and the Senator from Virginia has 3 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, hopefully, we can beat this 90-minute time
limit and have this debate more quickly.
Amendment No. 392
(Purpose: To delete language which the Department of Justice has stated
would ``. . . seriously undermine the safety and security of America's
federal prisons'')
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself,
Senator Hatch, and Senator Thurmond and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
The Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), for himself, Mr. Hatch,
and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an amendment numbered 392.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 284, strike all on line 7 through line 14 on page
286.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, Senator Levin and I every year or two have
this debate. It is well known. We have debated it before. People have
voted before. In fact, 61 Members of the Senate voted with me 2 years
ago to substitute a study for the Levin amendment.
Let me add, the amendment is a little different than it was then. The
thrust of it is basically the same. Two years ago, the Levin amendment
applied to all procurement related to the prison industry system. This
year, it applies to only defense procurement. But while its focus has
narrowed, its impact on the work system within our prisons remains very
broad.
I remind my colleagues that we took up this issue on July 10 of 1997.
There was a vote at that time, and 62 Members--61 of whom are still
Members of the Senate--voted on this issue on a different day in a
slightly different version. But the thrust of the issue, in terms of
procurement from the Federal prison industry system, is and was
basically the same.
Let me set out what I want to do in my opening statement. I want to
try to explain the problem in historical context, and I want to begin
with Alexis de Tocqueville. Then I want to come to the Depression,
which was really fork in the road with regard to prison labor in
America. I want to talk about the fork we took, the wrong fork in my
opinion. I want to talk about how the Levin amendment fits into the
system which has evolved since then. I want to talk about why this
provision by Senator Levin, which Senator Hatch and Senator Thurmond
and I hope to strike from the bill, is so devastating to the prison
industry system in America and why that, in turn, is harmful to every
taxpayer, to every victim of crime, to everyone who wants prisoners
rehabilitated when they go back out on the street. In fact, there is no
good argument, it seems to me, when you fully understand this issue,
for the Levin amendment. I then want to talk in some detail about each
of these items and then, obviously, at that point we will begin the
debate.
Let me start with de Tocqueville. As many of my colleagues will
remember, de Tocqueville came to America in the 1830s. He wrote a book
that has become the greatest critique of America ever written--
``Democracy in America.'' We forget that de Tocqueville came to America
not to study democracy but to study prisons. In fact, he wrote a book
on prisons, together with a fellow named Beaumont. We have forgotten
Beaumont, but we remember de Tocqueville.
In his analysis of American prisons, which were very much studied in
the 1830s because they were part of the most enlightened prison system
in the world, de Tocqueville praised at great length the fact that we
required American prisoners to work. In that period, prison labor of 12
hours a day, 6 days a week was the norm. De Tocqueville says in his
analysis on American prisons:
It would be inaccurate to say that in the Philadelphia
penitentiary labor is imposed. We may say with more justice
that the favor of labor is granted. When we visit this
penitentiary, we successively conversed with all its inmates.
There was not a single one among them who did not speak of
labor with a kind of gratitude and who did not express the
idea that without the relief of constant occupation, life
would be insufferable.
The principal characteristic of the American prison system in the age
that Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that remark was that prisoners worked
and they worked hard. They helped pay for the cost of incarceration by
working, and they produced things. Those products were sold on the open
market in
[[Page 10732]]
many cases. So the first obligation for feeding prisoners and
incarcerating prisoners was borne not by the taxpayer but by the
prisoner and, as de Tocqueville argues, I think quite impressively in
the book and in the quote I used, prisoners actually benefited from
labor because of the extreme boredom of being incarcerated with nothing
to do. This was the norm in America from the 1830s, when Alexis de
Tocqueville wrote, for 100 years, until the 1930s.
What happened in the 1930s was that we passed a series of laws driven
by special interests, principally labor and business, and you cannot
get bigger special interests than that. These laws consisted basically
of the following laws: the Hawes-Cooper Act which authorized States to
ban commerce in prison-made goods within their borders; the Sumners-
Ashurst Act which made it a Federal crime to transport prison-made
goods across State lines; and then another provision that said not only
can you not sell what prisoners produce, not only can you not transport
it for sale, but if you do force prisoners to work, you have to pay
them the union scale set by the local union.
Guess what the result of those three laws was. The result of those
three laws was that we destroyed the greatest prison industry system
that the world had ever known. We destroyed that prison system by
eliminating our ability to force people in prison to work; and in doing
so, force them to pay for part of the cost of their incarceration; and
we eliminated our ability to collect from them part of what they would
earn working in prison or what would be earned by their work to pay for
restitution to victims of crime.
What was left after we destroyed the ability of American prisons to
force prisoners to work was the ability of prisoners to produce things
that were used by Government. As a result, we now find ourselves in a
situation where we have 1,100,000 Americans in prison. They are almost
all male. They are almost all of prime working age. We spend $22,000 a
year keeping people in prison, which is nearly the cost of sending
somebody to the University of Chicago or to Harvard, and the cost of
keeping Americans in prison costs the average American taxpayer $200 a
year in taxes--just to keep people in prison.
The impact of the Levin amendment--I am sure he is going to gild this
lily with lots of gold around the edges--but the impact of his
amendment is to take another major step in destroying prison labor in
America. What his bill would do is, for all practical purposes, take
away about 60 percent of the work that Federal prisoners do now.
There are, obviously, two sides to these arguments. You can argue
that when people are working in prison that there is someone else who
might benefit from getting the job if the prisoner were not working. It
is hard to make that argument in America today when we have the lowest
unemployment rate in 30 years and when, in towns like my hometown of
College Station, college students go out and relax after classes and
impressment gangs come and virtually knock them in the head and drag
them off to a factory. So if there ever was an argument here that we
needed to take away prison work to protect American jobs, it is very
hard to make that argument in May of 1999.
But here is the system we have now. We have a system called Federal
Prison Industries where the Federal Government has work programs for
prisoners. It pays them a very small incentive payment. It withholds
about 20 percent of that payment as restitution to victims of the
crimes they have committed. It produces component parts for various
things used by the Government. It produces furniture, it produces some
electronic components. Through this system, we have about 20,000
Federal prisoners who work.
Under this amendment, about 60 percent of that work would be taken
away. Not only do I oppose this amendment, but the administration, in
its Statement of Administration Policy on this defense bill, on page 3,
``Federal Prison Industries Mandatory Source Exemption,'' opposes the
Levin amendment.
I have a letter here from the Attorney General. Among other things,
she says:
I am extremely concerned about this legislation because it
could have a negative impact on [the Federal Prison
Industries], which is the Bureau of Prisons most important,
efficient, and cost-effective tool for managing inmates and
for preparing them to be productive, law abiding citizens
upon release from prison.
I also have a letter from the National Center for Victims of Crime.
And they say, among other things:
Dollars that go to the crime victims through the [Federal
Prison Industries] program are coming out of criminal
offenders' pockets--the notion that the offender must be held
accountable and pay for the harm caused by crimes he [or] she
committed is at the heart of jurisprudence. Crime victims
often tell us that the amount of restitution an offender pays
is far less important to them than the fact that their
offender is paying restitution. Financial assistance from
offenders has a tremendous healing and restorative power for
criminal victims.
No. 1, the administration opposes the Levin amendment, supports our
effort to knock it out of the bill. The Attorney General, the Director
of Federal Prisons, and the National Center for Victims of Crime all
oppose this amendment. They all oppose it basically for the same
reason; and that is, it will end up raising the cost of incarceration.
It will end up lowering the amount of restitution going to victims. It
will idle prisoners, and you do not get rehabilitated sitting around in
air-conditioning watching color television.
If there is anything we know about the Federal prison work system,
and about the work system in States, it is that working is an important
part of rehabilitation. I personally would support proposals that would
force every able prisoner in America to work. I would like them to work
10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and go to school at night. But I know
with the vested interest that is built up against that, that we cannot
succeed in changing it today. I hope we will someday. But I do not want
to destroy what we have now.
Let me talk about recidivism.
In South Carolina--and you are going to hear from the distinguished
former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, a
very active member of the Judiciary Committee. In South Carolina, the
probability that a person who serves in a penitentiary in South
Carolina, when they will be released, will ever come back into a State
or Federal penitentiary again is 17 times higher for those who did not
work while they were in prison than it is for those who did work in
prison. Part of the reason is that people acquire skills in working
that allow them to go out into the private sector and get a job when
they get out of prison.
In Florida, the probability that a person in prison, when they are
released, will ever come back to prison is three times as high for
people who did not work while they were in the penitentiary in Florida
as it is for those who did work while they were in the penitentiary in
Florida.
For Wisconsin, it is twice as high; for Kentucky, it is almost twice
as high.
In the Federal system, the recidivism rate, the chances that someone
will come back to Federal prison, after having been released, is 24
percent lower for those who participate in work programs. We have
estimates that a 10-percent reduction in recidivism rates would lower
the overall social cost of crime and incarceration by $6.1 billion.
So another strong argument against the Levin amendment is that we
have hard data, not just from the Federal Government, but from many
States, that indicate conclusively if people work when they are in
prison, the probability that they will go out and commit another crime
that will get them sent back to prison is substantially, markedly lower
if they work than if they do not work.
You are going to hear Senator Levin argue that, well, this is not
price competition. And it is not. Let's make it clear, this is not a
competitive issue. I would defy anyone to pick up this defense
authorization bill and hold it out as a paragon of virtue in terms of
defense procurement efficiency. The defense procurement system is full
of protectionism and special interests,
[[Page 10733]]
where we give all kinds of special deals to all kinds of producers in
selling things to the Defense Department.
I say competition in procurement is a good thing. I swear by it. I
support it. But when you have page after page of acquisition rules that
say we pay inflated prices to buy things domestically rather than
buying them on the world market, it is hard to suddenly be concerned
about competition in prices with regard to prison-made goods.
This is not about competition. This is about using a resource we have
with 1.1 million people in prison.
Now, having said that, the GAO recently did a study of the Federal
Prison Industries of 20 different products that were bought by the
Defense Department. What the GAO concluded was the Federal Prison
Industries prices were within the market range for virtually every
product that was bought by the Defense Department. So it is true that
in the strictest terms, we don't have competitive bidding on goods
produced in prison, but we have market surveys. We have negotiations
between the Defense Department and the prison, and we have a simulation
of what the market system would look like if you had a competitive
bidding system.
Also, the Department of Defense Inspector General recently completed
a study of the Federal Prison Industries prices and concluded that DOD
could have saved millions of dollars by buying more items from the
Federal Prison Industries if it had bought more items from them rather
than buying them in the open market.
Now, let me remind my colleagues--I know Senator Thurmond is here and
is very busy; I want to give him an opportunity to speak--that 2 years
ago, when we debated this same issue in a slightly different form with
the thrust identical, I offered a substitute amendment that mandated a
study be done by the Department of Defense and by the Federal Prison
Industries and Department of Justice. That study has just been
completed, and it was reported to the Armed Services Committee and then
to Members of the Senate. I draw my colleagues' attention to page 4 of
the executive summary to the conclusions that were reached in the
study.
The question was what recommendations did they have as to changes we
might make in current law with regard to the Defense Department buying
things produced in Federal prisons. They concluded, the recommendations
can be made within existing statutory authority and will not require
legislative action. Department of Defense and Federal Prison Industries
say they believe that implementing the recommendations will improve the
efficiency and reduce the cost of procurement transactions between the
two agencies. Implementation of the administrative actions should
facilitate and enhance the working relationship between the two
agencies.
So in short, 2 years ago when we debated this issue and we decided to
study the problem that was raised by Senator Levin, we had that study
completed jointly by the Defense Department and the Department of
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and they have concluded that
they should undertake a modernization system, but they do not need any
legislative authority to do it.
I urge my colleagues to remember, if we adopt this amendment and we
kill off 60 percent of the remaining prison labor in America, we are
going to spend more money to incarcerate prisoners. We are going to
have less money go to victims. We are going to have a higher recidivism
rate as people come out of prison and commit crimes again. And the net
result will be that we will have taken work that was being done in
prison, and we will have put it into the private sector. But in a
period when we have an acute labor shortage and in a period when we
have 1.1 million people in prison, 1 percent of the labor force, it
makes absolutely no sense, it is destructive of our criminal justice
system to destroy the remnants of prison labor.
I remind my colleagues that when you bring Senator Thurmond, Senator
Hatch and myself into an alliance with the administration, into an
alliance with Janet Reno, the Attorney General, and then you have the
support of victims' rights groups all over the country, that is a
pretty broad coalition. What each and every one of these entities is
saying is, do not kill off prison labor.
When we have 130 million Americans who go to work every day and
struggle to make ends meet, I do not understand what is wrong with
forcing prisoners to work. I want prisoners to work. It is good for
them. It is good for the taxpayer. It is good policy, and we should not
allow that system to be destroyed.
I reserve the remainder of my time, but I yield whatever time he
might need to our distinguished colleague, Senator Thurmond, who today
was recognized for the 75th anniversary of being commissioned an
officer and a gentleman in the U.S. Army. For 75 years, three quarters
of a century, Senator Thurmond has borne that commission to uphold,
protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and
domestic, and whether it was on D-Day in Normandy or whether it was on
the Supreme Court of South Carolina or whether it was Governor or
whether it is our most distinguished Member of the Senate, Strom
Thurmond is truly a man to hold against the mountain and the sky.
I yield whatever time he might need to Senator Thurmond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Texas, Mr.
Gramm, for the magnificent remarks he made on this important subject
and also thank him for the kind remarks he made about me.
I rise in strong support of the amendment to strike section 806 of S.
1059, the Defense Authorization Act, which was added in Committee by
Senator Levin. This provision could endanger Federal Prison Industries
or UNICOR, which is the most important inmate program in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons.
To protect our citizens, America is placing more and more dangerous
and violent criminals in prison. Indeed, one of the main reasons crime
rates in America are going down is because the number of criminals we
are putting behind bars is increasing. The Bureau of Prisons has an
extremely important and complex task in housing and, to the extent
possible, rehabilitating these inmates. FPI is critical to this task.
Prisoners must work. Idleness and boredom in prison leads to mischief
and violence. FPI keeps inmates productively occupied, which helps
maintain the safety and security for staff, other inmates, and the law-
abiding public outside.
Moreover, prisoners who work in FPI develop job skills and learn a
work ethic. As a result, they adjust better in prison and are better
prepared to become productive members of society when they leave.
Mr. President, the program works. Studies show that inmates who
worked in Prison Industries are 24 percent more likely to find and hold
jobs and remain crime-free after they are released. Inmates in FPI are
more likely to become responsible, productive citizens.
I am very concerned that section 806, the Levin provision, could
threaten this essential program. FPI may sell its products only to
Federal agencies, and the Department of Defense represents almost 60
percent of its sales. Yet, the Levin provision would make it much
easier for Defense purchasers not to use FPI based on a very vague and
nuclear standard. Further, this provision would eliminate entirely the
mandatory source preference for any Defense order under $2,500.
Purchases under this amount account for 78 percent of FPI orders. Also,
the amendment would exempt Defense purchases in a wide range of
telecommunications or information systems under the broad name of
national security. This could be very harmful to FPI's production of
electronic products.
Drastic changes of this nature are not warranted, as even the
Department of Defense recognizes. The DoD and BoP have just completed a
joint study
[[Page 10734]]
that we ordered in a previous Defense Authorization Bill. In a survey
taken as part of the study, DoD customers generally rated FPI in the
good to excellent or average ranges in all categories, including price,
quality, delivery, and service. As the report states, the working
relationship between FPI and DoD remains strong and vital.
The study concludes that no legislative changes are warranted in
Defense purchases from FPI. It made some recommendations for
improvements that are currently being implemented. We should give the
study time to work.
Indeed, the Administration strongly opposes the Levin provision. The
Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1059 explains that this
provision ``would essentially eliminate the Federal Prison Industries
mandatory source with the Defense Department. Such action could harm
the FPI program which is fundamental to the security in Federal
prisons.''
FPI does not have an advantage over the private sector. Although
inmates make less money than other workers, FPI must deal with many
hidden costs and constraints that do not apply to the private sector.
Working inmates must be closely supervised, adding to labor costs,
and extensive time-consuming security procedures must be followed. For
example, when inmates go to work, they must pass through a metal
detector and check their tools in and out, even if they just leave for
lunch.
While the private sector often specializes in certain products, FPI
by law must diversity its product lines to lessen its impact on any one
industry. Also, the private sector tries to keep labor costs low, while
FPI intentionally keeps its factories as labor-intensive as possible.
Moreover, inmate workers generally have little education and training
and often have never held a steady job. Indeed, the productivity rate
of an employee with the background of an average inmate has been
estimated at one-fourth that of a civilian worker.
FPI is not used for every Federal purchase. In fact, it only
constitutes a small minority. If a customer does not feel that FPI can
meet its delivery, price, or technical requirements, then the customer
can request a waiver of the mandatory source. Last year, 90 percent of
waiver requests were approved, generally within four days.
Moreover, some private businesses depend on FPI for their existence.
FPI purchased over $418 million in raw materials and component parts
from private industry in 1998. Contracts for such purchases are awarded
in nearly every state, and more than half go to small businesses.
Further, Prison Industries helps crime victims recover the money they
are due. The program requires that 50 percent of all inmate wages be
used for victim restitution, fines, child support, or other court-
ordered payments. Last year, FPI collected nearly $2 million for this
purpose.
The Levin provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee and should be evaluated there. Indeed, my Judiciary
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight held a hearing yesterday on
Prison Industries. We discussed in detail the importance of the program
and how damaging the changes we are considering in this bill could be.
FPI is a correctional program that is essential to the safe and
efficient operation of our increasingly overcrowded Federal prisons.
While we are putting more and more criminals in prison, we must
maintain the program that keeps them occupied and working.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am authorized by Senator Levin to speak at
this time. But I am going to ask Mr. Gramm if he will yield me some
time.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin, knew my
position on this matter, but he accommodated me by suggesting that I
might proceed at this time while he is away from his chair. I thank the
distinguished Senator from Texas for yielding time to me.
I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of section 806 in the fiscal
year 2000 Defense authorization bill. This section would substantially
undermine Federal Prison Industries--the Bureau of Prisons' most
important skill-developing program for inmates.
I believe that this matter should not be included in the defense
authorization bill. It is a matter that is being considered by the
Senate Judiciary Committee. I am advised that the Criminal Justice
Oversight Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by
the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, conducted an
oversight hearing on this matter on May 24--yesterday.
The Attorney General of the United States, in a letter addressed to
the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has indicated that she
is concerned about this legislative provision. The Attorney General's
letter asserts that the legislative provision would have a negative
impact on Federal Prison Industries,
. . . which is the Bureau of Prisons' most important,
efficient, and cost-effective tool for managing inmates and
for preparing them to be productive, law-abiding citizens
upon release from prison.
I am also advised that the administration has taken a strong position
in opposition to section 806 because of the harm it would do to the FPI
program, which is fundamental to the security in Federal prisons. The
administration believes that to ensure Federal inmates are employed in
sufficient numbers, the current mandatory source requirement should not
be altered until an effective alternative program is designed and put
into place.
Mr. President, in the State of West Virginia there are three Federal
prisons--the Federal prison at Alderson, the Robert C. Byrd Federal
Correctional Institution at Beckley, and the Robert F. Kennedy Prison
at Morgantown. And each of these has an FPI operation. At these three
Federal prisons alone, the Bureau of Prisons is able to keep more than
500 inmates productively occupied, and employ nearly 40 staff at no
cost to the taxpayer. How about that! That sounds like a good deal to
me.
Mr. President, a somewhat similar amendment was offered to the
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1998. The Senate instead
adopted a substitute amendment offered by the distinguished senior
Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), which required a joint study by the
Department of Defense and FPI on this matter. That study has recently
been completed and transmitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The joint study made several recommendations that could be accomplished
within existing authority, without requiring legislative action.
In summary, I am opposed to section 806 to the Defense authorization
bill because it is unwarranted, and not only is it unwarranted, but it
would have a debilitating effect on Federal Prisons Industries. This is
a matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee and
should not be included in this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Statement of
Administration Position on Section 806 of the Defense authorization
bill be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Administration Position on Section 806 of the Defense
Authorization Bill (S. 1059)
federal prison industries mandatory source exemption
The Administration opposes Section 806 which would
essentially eliminate the Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
mandatory source with the Defense Department. Such action
could harm the FPI program which is fundamental to the
security in Federal prisons. In principle, the Administration
believes that the Government should support competition for
the provision of goods and services to Federal agencies.
However, to ensure that Federal inmates are employed in
sufficient numbers, the current mandatory source requirement
should not be altered until an alternative program is
designed and put in place. Finally, this provision would
[[Page 10735]]
only address mandatory sourcing for the Defense Department,
without regard to the rest of federal government.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished Senator from
Texas, Mr. Gramm, and I likewise express my appreciation to the
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for his leadership
overall on this bill. He is very dedicated, very able, and he works
very hard. I am proud to serve with him on the Armed Services
Committee. But in this case, I regret that I have to oppose his
position.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my 10 minutes that
was yielded to me from that side to Mr. Hatch, if I may ask unanimous
consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the President and I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this
amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. I congratulate Senators
Gramm, Thurmond, and Byrd for their excellent statements on this
matter, and for their leadership on this issue.
This amendment strikes section 806 of the bill, a provision that
would effectively eliminate the Department of Defense purchasing
preference for products supplied by Federal Prison Industries (FPI),
also known by its trade name of UNICOR.
FPI is the federal corporation charged by Congress with the mission
of training and employing federal prison inmates.
For more than 60 years, this correctional program has provided
inmates with the opportunity to learn practical work habits and skills.
It has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in Congress and from each
Republican and Democrat administration. An important part of this
support has been the cooperative relationship between FPI and the
Department of Defense--a relationship that has helped supply our armed
forces in every war since 1934.
FPI is an irreplaceable corrections program. FPI and its training
programs at federal prisons across the nation have been credited with
helping to lower recidivism and ensuring better job-related success for
prisoners upon their release--a result that all of us applaud.
Finally, FPI is an essential tool for ensuring a safe and secure
correctional environment for staff, guards, and inmates in the federal
prison system. Simply put, FPI keeps inmates productively occupied. And
since the limited number of FPI jobs are coveted by inmates, getting
and keeping these jobs are important incentives for good behavior by
inmates.
These are important considerations as the federal inmate population
continues to rise. In the last ten years, the federal inmate population
has more than doubled, from 51,153 in 1989 to 108,207 in 1998. As
Philip Glover, President of the Council of Prison Locals, AFGE,
testified before the Judiciary Committee yesterday, ``We cannot afford
to simply warehouse inmates.''
Any corrections officer will tell you that the most dangerous inmate
is the idle inmate. Idleness breeds frustration, and provides ample
time to plan mischief--a volatile combination. Yet, despite the
references to the costs imposed by FPI by my colleagues who oppose this
amendment, I have heard no one suggest how the taxpayers will pay for
the new prison programs and the additional prison guards that might be
needed if FPI factories are forced to close.
Section 806 of this bill, which our amendment strikes, puts the FPI
program at substantial risk, and would certainly result in the
shuttering of some FPI factories. Section 806 exempts from the FPI
mandatory source requirement products priced below $2,500, products
integral to or embedded in another product not made by FPI, or products
which are components of a larger product used for military intelligence
or weaponry. Together, these categories make up over 80 percent of
DoD's purchases from FPI. FPI, in turn, depends on sales to the
Pentagon for nearly 60 percent of its business.
Some may reasonably ask, why should there be a government procurement
preference for FPI goods? The answer is simply this: when FPI was
established, in perhaps an unnecessary effort ensure the program did
not affect private sector jobs, FPI was barred from selling its
products in the commercial market. This is still the law. Thus, under
current law, FPI may sell its products and services only to the federal
government. Section 806 does not alter this sales restriction, and I do
not understand the Senator from Michigan to be supporting such a
change.
To ensure that FPI has adequate work to keep inmates occupied,
congress created a special FPI ``procurement preference,'' under which
federal agencies are required to make their purchases from FPI instead
of other vendors, as long as FPI can meet price, quality, and delivery
requirements.
Section 806 would remove this procurement preference, as it relates
to the vast majority of sales to the Department of Defense. Without
this preference, FPI could be crippled. Again, FPI is not permitted to
compete for sales in the private market. It may only sell to the
federal government, and then only if it can meet price, quality, and
delivery requirements. And even then, waivers are available.
Nothing short of the viability of Federal Prison Industries is at
issue here. Under full competition for federal contracts, combined with
market restrictions, FPI could not survive.
My colleagues should remember that the primary mission of FPI is not
profit. The primary mission of FPI is the safe and effective
incarceration and rehabilitation of federal prisoners. Needless to say,
FPI operates under constraints on its efficiency no private sector
manufacturer must operate under. For example:
Most private sector companies invest in the latest, most efficient
technology and equipment to increase productivity and reduce labor
costs. Because of its different mission, FPI frequently must make its
manufacturing processes as labor-intensive as possible--in order to
keep as many inmates as possible occupied.
The secure correctional environment FPI in which FPI operates
requires additional inefficiencies. Tools must be carefully checked in
and out before and after each shift, and at every break. Inmate workers
frequently must be searched before returning to their cells. And FPI
factories must shut down whenever inmate unrest or institutional
disturbances occur. No private sector business operates under these
competitive disadvantages.
The average federal inmate is 37 years old, has only an 8th grade
education, and has never held a steady legal job. Some studies have
estimated that the productivity of a worker with this profile is about
one-quarter of that of the average worker in the private sector. This
is another disadvantage that, by and large, private companies do not
have to operate under.
Finally, FPI is required to diversify its product line to minimize
the impact on any one industry. Moreover, FPI can only enter new lines
of business, or expand existing lines, after an exhaustive review has
been undertaken to the impact on the private sector. Again, this is a
restraint that most other businesses do not have imposed on them.
All of us share the goal of ensuring that FPI does not adversely
impact private business. FPI has made considerable efforts to minimize
any adverse impact on the private sector. Over the past few years, it
has transferred factory operations from multiple factory locations to
new prisons, in order to create necessary inmate jobs without
increasing FPI sales. FPI has also begun operations such as a mattress
recycling factory, a laundry, a computer repair factory, and a mail bag
repair factory, among others, to diversify its operations and minimize
its impact on the private sector, while providing essential prison
jobs.
Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that FPI actually creates
a substantial number of private sector jobs. In FY 1998, thousands of
vendors nationwide registered with FPI, and supplied nearly $419
million in purchases to FPI. And at the same time
[[Page 10736]]
FPI trained and employed 20,200 federal inmates at no expense to the
taxpayer in FY 1998, it also directly supported 4,600 jobs outside
prison walls.
Every dollar FPI receives in revenue is recycled into the private
sector. Out of each dollar, 76 cents goes to the purchase of raw
materials, equipment, services, and overhead, all supplied by the
private sector; 18 cents goes to salaries of FPI staff; and 6 cents
goes to inmate pay, which in turn if passed along to pay victim
restitution, child support, alimony, and fines. Incidentally, FPI
inmates are required to apply 50 percent of their earnings to these
costs.
Thus, while I have some sympathy for the intent of Senator Levin, who
sponsored this provision in the bill, I must join Senator Gramm in
offering this amendment to strike Section 806. I would like to remind
my colleagues that the Senate has addressed this matter before. Two
years ago, Senator Levin offered a similar amendment. Mr. President, 62
members of the Senate voted instead for an amendment offered by Senator
Gramm and myself, requiring the Departments of Defense and Justice to
undertake a joint study of the procurement and purchase processes
governing FPI sales to the Department of Defense.
Just last month, this study was delivered to Congress. Interestingly,
the report does not support the action proposed by section 806. To the
contrary, the Departments of Defense and Justice jointly concluded that
the report's ``recommendations can be made within existing statutory
authority, and will not require legislative action.''
In fact, neither of the Departments affected by section 806 support
its inclusion in this bill. The Administration's official Statement of
Administration policy is equally clear, stating that ``the
Administration opposes Section 806.''
In summary, either we want Federal inmates to work, or we do not. I
believe that we do want inmates to work, and therefore I must oppose
section 806. I say to my colleagues, if you believe in maintaining good
order and discipline in prisons, or if you believe in the
rehabilitation of inmates when possible, you should support this
amendment.
I agree with those of my colleagues who believe that we must address
the issues raised by prison industries nationwide. As we continue,
appropriately, to incarcerate more serious criminals in both Federal
and State prisons, productive work must be found for them. At the same
time, we must ensure that jobs are not taken from law-abiding workers.
Under the leadership of Senator Thurmond, the Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight yesterday held a hearing on
this issue. Witnesses at that hearing urged Congress not to gut FPI
without addressing the broader need for productive prison work.
FPI is a proven correctional program. It enhances the security of
federal prisons, helps ensure that federal inmates work, furthers
inmate rehabilitation when possible, and provides restitution to
victims. Section 806 would do immense harm to this highly successful
program, and I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to strike
it.
I also ask unanimous consent a letter to me from the Office of the
Attorney General be printed in the Record with the accompanying
documents.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Office of the Attorney General,
Washington, DC, May 25, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense
Authorization bill that was recently reported out of the
Armed Services Committee includes a provision regarding
Department of Defense (DoD) purchases from Federal Prison
Industries (FPI). We believe that the statutory changes
required by this provision are premature in light of the
recommendations of the congressionally mandated two-year
study recently completed by the Department of Defense and FPI
that explored the procurement relationship between these two
agencies. For the reasons stated in the Deputy Attorney
General's letter (copy attached), I am extremely concerned
about this legislation because it could have a negative
impact on FPI, which is the Bureau of Prisons most important,
efficient, and cost-effective tool for managing inmates and
for preparing them to be productive, law abiding citizens
upon release from prison.
Federal Prison Industries is first and foremost a
correctional program intended to train the Federal inmate
population and minimize adverse impact on the private sector
business community. As such, it adheres to several
statutorily mandated principles, including diversifying its
product line to avoid hurting any particular industry and
remaining as labor intensive as possible. These practices
render FPI less competitive than private sector
manufacturers. The mandatory source status (which would be
effectively eliminated as a result of provision) helps
ameliorate these circumstances by achieving customer contact
which reduces competitive advertising costs. It also assists
FPI in its efforts to partner with private sector
manufacturers who are attracted to the steady work flow
provided by this preference. These partnerships are essential
to FPI since it cannot, on its own, produce many complicated
products such as systems furniture.
This provision would alter the requirement that the
Department of Defense purchase products from FPI, and it
could require FPI to compete with the private sector for
sales of products that are components of products not
produced by FPI, are part of a national security system, or
the total cost of which is less than $2,500. Even with
respect to other products, DoD is no longer required to
purchase from FPI, rather the Secretary of Defense must
``conduct market research'' to determine whether the FPI
product is ``comparable in price, quality, and time of
delivery'' to products available from the private sector
before making purchases. If the Secretary concludes that the
FPI product is not comparable, the purchase may be made from
any source.
Purchases by the Department of Defense account for almost
60% of FPI's sales. Moreover, 78 percent of the DoD orders
are for small purchases of less than $2,500, and much of the
remaining 22 percent is made up of products or components of
products made by other manufacturers and products used in
national security systems. Accordingly, if this provision is
enacted into law, the continued existence of FPI will depend
in large part on its ability to compete with the private
sector for the limited Department of Defense market.
A recently completed report conducted by the Department of
Defense and FPI concluded that no legislative changes were
warranted by the investigation of procurement transactions
between these two entities. Rather, while the study, entitled
``A Study of the Procurement, Procedures, Regulations and
Statutes that Govern Procurement Transactions between the
Department of Defense and Federal Prison Industries,'' \1\
made a number of recommendations for facilitating and
enhancing the working relationship between the two agencies
that could be accomplished within existing statutory
authority, the study recommends the FPI and DoD create a
pilot program at eight DoD locations to test the
effectiveness of administrative waivers for purchases of less
than $2,500 where expedited delivery is required.
Additionally, FPI will continue to monitor and evaluate
delivery performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This study was mandated by Section 855 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105-85),
and was released to the Senate and House Armed Services
Committee several weeks ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues surrounding FPI, such as the mandatory source status
affect all agencies, not just the Department of Defense.
Therefore, this issue should be reviewed in the broader
context.
If you should have any questions or if we may provide
further information about FPI, please feel free to contact
the Department. The Office of Management and Budget has
advised us that from the perspective of the Administration's
program, there is no objection to submission of this letter.
Sincerely,
Janet Reno.
____
Office of the
Deputy Attorney General,
Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We anticipate that an amendment will be
offered to the Defense Authorization bill that would
eliminate mandatory source status for Federal Prison
Industries (FPI). We believe that the amendment would have a
devastating impact upon FPI, a program that is critical to
the safe and orderly operations of federal prisons.
FPI is the Bureau of Prisons most important, efficient, and
cost-effective tool for managing inmates. It keeps inmates
productively occupied and reduces inmate idleness and the
violence and disruptive behavior associated with it. Thus, it
is essential to the security of the Federal Prison System,
its staff, inmates, and the communities in which they are
located. By eliminating FPI's mandatory source status, the
amendment would dramatically reduce the number of inmates FPI
would be able to employ. The inmate
[[Page 10737]]
idleness this would create would seriously undermine the
safety and security of America's federal prisons.
In addition to being a tool for managing the growing inmate
population,\1\ FPI programs provide inmates with training and
experience that develop job skills and a strong work ethic.
Bureau of Prisons' research has confirmed the value of FPI as
a correctional program. Findings demonstrate that inmates who
work in FPI, compared to similar inmates who do not have FPI
experience, have better institutional adjustment. Moreover,
after release, they are more likely to be employed and
significantly less likely to commit another crime. A long-
term post-release employment study by the Bureau of Prisons
has found that inmates who were released as long as 8 to 12
years ago and who participated in industries work or
vocational training programs were 24 percent less likely to
be recommitted to federal prisons than a comparison group of
inmates who had no such training. Clearly, the FPI program
contributes to public safety by enhancing the eventual
reintegration of offenders into the community after release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The federal inmate population is growing at an
unprecedented rate and crowding at secure institutions is
already at critical levels and expected to increase in the
near term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of FPI have asserted that FPI is an unfair
competitor and that it is damaging the private sector. This
is not accurate. Throughout its history, FPI has followed a
number of practices deliberately designed to reduce its
impact on the private sector, such as diversifying its
product line to avoid hurting any particular industry and
remaining as labor intensive as possible. Further, far from
taking jobs from the private sector, FPI actually creates
jobs in the private sector by purchasing over $418 million
annually in supplies from the private sector.
It is important to explain why FPI's status as a mandatory
source is critical to FPI's viability. The mandatory source
status was established as a means of creating a steady flow
of work for the employment of inmates. FPI views the
mandatory source status as a method of not only maintaining
this work flow but also achieving customer contact which
reduces competitive advertising costs.
FPI does not abuse its mandatory source status. If a
customer feels that FPI cannot meet its delivery, price, or
technical requirements, the customer may request a waiver of
the mandatory source. These waivers are processed quickly (an
average of 4 days) and, in 1998, FPI approved over 80 percent
of the requests from federal agencies for waivers.
FPI does not have the capability to produce many
sophisticated products, such as systems furniture,
independently. It relies on the private sector to provide
space planning, design, engineering, installation and
customer service. By entering into partnerships with private
companies through the use of federal acquisition procedures,
FPI vertically integrates the manufacturing of a company's
product using inmate labor. In order to attract a private
sector partner, there must be some incentive. That incentive
is the mandatory source. Without the mandatory source status,
FPI would be unable to attract the private sector partners
necessary for it to diversify its product offerings and to
offer products which are contemporary and attractive to its
federal customers.
Last week, the report of a congressionally mandated study
conducted by the Department of Defense (DoD) and FPI
concluded that no legislative changes were warranted by the
investigation of procurement transactions between these two
entities. The study, entitled ``A Study of the Procurement,
Procedures, Regulations and Statutes that Govern Procurement
Transactions between the Department of Defense and Federal
Prison Industries,'' was mandated by Section 855 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L.
105-85), and was released to the Senate and House Armed
Services Committee last week. The report noted that some
steps could be taken to improve the procurement relationship
between DoD and FPI, but such steps are most appropriately
accomplished within the executive branch.
FPI is a law enforcement issue more than a government
supply issue because it is essential to the management of
federal prisons and because FPI is operated as a correctional
program, not as a for-profit business. As a result, we
continue to develop pilot programs that will make FPI a more
efficient and cost competitive source. We believe that the
amendment would benefit from consideration by the Judiciary
Committee to consider the mandatory source issue in the
context of the full FPI program. Simply considering the
amendment as affecting a source of goods for the federal
sector would completely overlook the law enforcement
significance of FPI and threaten a program that is
fundamental to public safety.
We are enclosing a copy of the study report conducted by
DoD and FPI for your review. If you should have any questions
or if we may provide further information about FPI, please
feel free to contact the Department.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General.
____
Office of the Deputy Attorney General,
Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We anticipate that an amendment will be
offered to the Defense Authorization bill that would
eliminate mandatory source status for Federal Prison
Industries (FPI). We believe that the amendment would have a
devastating impact upon FPI, a program that is critical to
the safe and orderly operations of federal prisons.
FPI is the Bureau of Prisons most important, efficient, and
cost-effective tool for managing inmates. It keeps inmates
productively occupied and reduces inmate idleness and the
violence and disruptive behavior associated with it. Thus, it
is essential to the security of the Federal Prison System,
its staff, inmates, and the communities in which they are
located. By eliminating FPI's mandatory source status, the
amendment would dramatically reduce the number of inmates FPI
would be able to employ. The inmate idleness this would
create would seriously undermine the safety and security of
America's federal prisons.
In addition to being a tool for managing the growing inmate
population,\1\ FPI programs provide inmates with training and
experience that develop job skills and a strong work ethic.
Bureau of Prisons' research has confirmed the value of FPI as
a correctional program. Findings demonstrate that inmates who
work in FPI, compared to similar inmates who do not have FPI
experience, have better institutional adjustment. Moreover,
after release, they are more likely to be employed and
significantly less likely to commit another crime. A long-
term post-release employment study by the Bureau of Prisons
has found that inmates who were released as long as 8 to 12
years ago and who participated in industries work or
vocational training programs were 24 percent less likely to
be recommitted to federal prisons than a comparison group of
inmates who had no such training. Clearly, the FPI program
contributes to public safety by enhancing the eventual
reintegration of offenders into the community after release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The federal inmate population is growing at an
unprecedented rate and crowding at secure institutions is
already at critical levels and expected to increase in the
near term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of FPI have asserted that FPI is an unfair
competitor and that it is damaging the private sector. This
is not accurate. Throughout its history, FPI has followed a
number of practices deliberately designed to reduce its
impact on the private sector, such as diversifying its
product line to avoid hurting any particular industry and
remaining as labor intensive as possible. Further, far from
taking jobs from the private sector, FPI actually creates
jobs in the private sector by purchasing over $418 million
annually in supplies from the private sector.
It is important to explain why FPI's status as a mandatory
source is critical to FPI's viability. The mandatory source
status was established as a means of creating a steady flow
of work for the employment of inmates. FPI views the
mandatory source status as a method of not only maintaining
this work flow but also achieving customer contact which
reduces competitive advertising costs.
FPI does not abuse its mandatory source status. If a
customer feels that FPI cannot meet its delivery, price, or
technical requirements, the customer may request a waiver of
the mandatory source. These waivers are processed quickly (an
average of 4 days) and, in 1998, FPI approved over 80 percent
of the requests from federal agencies for waivers.
FPI does not have the capability to produce many
sophisticated products, such as systems furniture,
independently. It relies on the private sector to provide
space planning, design, engineering, installation and
customer service. By entering into partnerships with private
companies through the use of federal acquisition procedures,
FPI vertically integrates the manufacturing of a company's
product using inmate labor. In order to attract a private
sector partner, there must be some incentive. That incentive
is the mandatory source. Without the mandatory source status,
FPI would be unable to attract the private sector partners
necessary for it to diversify its product offerings and to
offer products which are contemporary and attractive to its
federal customers.
Last week, the report of a congressionally mandated study
conducted by the Department of Defense (DoD) and FPI
concluded that no legislative changes were warranted by the
investigation of procurement transactions between these two
entities. The study, entitled ``A Study of the Procurement,
Procedures, Regulations and Statutes that Govern Procurement
Transactions between the Department of Defense and Federal
Prison Industries,'' was mandated by Section 855 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L.
105-85), and was released to the Senate and House Armed
Services Committee last week. The report noted that some
steps could be taken to improve the procurement relationship
between DoD and FPI, but such steps are most appropriately
accomplished within the executive branch.
[[Page 10738]]
FPI is a law enforcement issue more than a government
supply issue because it is essential to the management of
federal prisons and because FPI is operated as a correctional
program, not as a for-profit business. As a result, we
continue to develop pilot programs that will make FPI a more
efficient and cost competitive source. We believe that the
amendment would benefit from consideration by the Judiciary
Committee to consider the mandatory source issue in the
context of the full FPI program. Simply considering the
amendment as affecting a source of goods for the federal
sector would completely overlook the law enforcement
significance of FPI and threaten a program that is
fundamental to public safety.
We are enclosing a copy of the study report conducted by
DoD and FPI for your review. If you should have any questions
or if we may provide further information about FPI, please
feel free to contact the Department.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General.
____
Statement of Administration Position on Section 806 of the Defense
Authorization Bill (S. 1059)
federal prison industries mandatory source exemption
The Administration opposes Section 806 which would
essentially eliminate the Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
mandatory source with the Defense Department. Such action
could harm the FPI program which is fundamental to the
security in Federal prisons. In principle, the Administration
believes that the Government should support competition for
the provisions goods and services to Federal agencies.
However, to ensure that Federal inmates are employed in
sufficient numbers, the current mandatory source requirement
should not be altered until an alternative program is
designed and put in place. Finally, this provision would only
address mandatory sourcing for the Defense Department,
without regard to the rest of federal government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Michigan
controls the remaining time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, section 806 of the defense authorization
bill which is before the Senate is a commonsense provision. It was
adopted by the Armed Services Committee. Basically, it says the private
sector ought to be allowed to bid on items that the Department of
Defense is buying, if the Department of Defense declares that it is
necessary that the private sector be allowed to bid.
That may sound so obvious that people may be scratching their heads
saying, well, obviously the private sector ought to be allowed to bid
if the Department of Defense believes the product which is offered by
the private sector is what is needed by the Department of Defense. But
that is not the way it is now. The way it is now is that Federal Prison
Industries can make a unilateral decision that it is going to supply
the Department of Defense with a product, and the private business
people out there who want to just simply compete for a product can be
prohibited from doing so. That, it seems to me, is the height of
unfairness in a society which has a private sector, has private
businesses, has labor that is working in those private businesses, and
where a Government agency says that product, produced by that private
company, is a product that we want because it is a better product than
FPI can give us or it is a product that can be given to us more cheaply
than the prisons can give it to us.
What an extraordinary way it is to run a Government, that we have
agencies in this Government that want to buy a product, be it textiles
or furniture or what have you, that are told they cannot compete that
product with the private sector competing; they have to buy it from
Federal Prison Industries even though it costs the agency more or it is
of lower quality. What an extraordinary way to be inefficient, to waste
taxpayers' money, and to force agencies that are supposed to be
protecting taxpayers' money to spend it on lesser quality items or on
more expensive items--just because Federal Prison Industries
unilaterally has decided it is going to supply the Department of
Defense. That is not fair. That is not fair and we have to eliminate
it.
Section 806 simply says that the Department of Defense--not Federal
Prison Industries--should determine whether or not a product
manufactured by Federal Prison Industries meets the needs of the
Department of Defense.
The approach that is taken by Section 806 is consistent with the
basic tenet of how our whole procurement system works, which is the
people who buy and use products should be the ones who decide whether
the quality, price, and delivery of those products meet their needs.
Yet amazingly enough, the FPI, Federal Prison Industries' current rules
prohibit Federal agencies from even looking at private sector products
to determine whether they might be superior to what Federal Prison
Industries has.
The regulations of Federal Prison Industries say:
A contracting activity should not solicit bids, proposals,
quotations or otherwise test the market for the purpose of
seeking alternative sources to the Federal Prison Industries.
If that is not absolutely extraordinary, that Federal Prison
Industries is telling the Department of Defense, when they go and buy
textiles or shoes or whatever they are buying, that they may not even
test the market, seeking alternative sources to Federal Prison
Industries.
They may not solicit bids, proposals, quotations, or test the market
for the purpose of seeking alternative sources to Federal Prison
Industries.
What kind of an upside-down situation is this? What kind of a topsy-
turvy situation is it that the Department of Defense cannot even
solicit a quote from somebody to supply a product if Federal Prison
Industries says they may not do so? Unilaterally, the seller is telling
the buyer: You can't even go out and seek other quotes or seek
competition.
Boy, that sure turns the purchasing process of the Department of
Defense and our other agencies right on its head.
What the Department of Defense is required to do, instead of doing
what ordinary buyers do, which is to seek the best product at the best
price, is to accept Federal Prison Industries' determination. Federal
Prison Industries is the sole arbiter of whether its products meet the
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 8104 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act requires the
Department of Defense and other agencies to conduct market research
before soliciting bids or proposals for products that may be available
in the commercial marketplace. They are supposed to solicit bids, but
they do not do that. They are not allowed to do that. Under the FPI
rules, they have to buy it from Federal Prison Industries if the
Industries on their own, unilaterally, decide they are going to force
the Department of Defense to buy a product.
All that the provision does is to reverse the rule which prohibits
the Department of Defense from conducting market research and permits
the Department of Defense to look at what private sector companies have
to offer, as it would do in the case of any other procurement.
If Federal Prison Industries offers a product that is comparable in
price, quality, and time of delivery to products available from the
private sector, the Department would still be required to purchase that
product on a sole-source basis from Federal Prison Industries. But if
the DOD determines that Federal Prison Industries' product was not
competitive, then it would be permitted to conduct a competition and go
to another source.
That seems to me to be the least that we can do to protect the
taxpayers from the misuse of Federal funds on products that fail to
meet the needs of the Department of Defense.
Federal Prison Industries has repeatedly claimed that it provides
quality products at a price that is competitive with current market
prices. The statute, indeed, is intended to do exactly that, provided
Federal Prison Industries will provide the Federal agencies products
that meet their requirements and prices that do not exceed current
market prices. But the FPI is unwilling to permit agencies to compare
their products at prices with those available in the private sector.
Under Federal Prison Industries' current interpretation of the law,
it need not offer the best product at the best price. It is sufficient
for it to offer an adequate product at an adequate price and insist on
its right to make the
[[Page 10739]]
sale. When Federal Prison Industries sets the price, it then seeks to
charge what it calls a market price, which means that at least some
vendors in the private sector charge a higher price, and the FPI's
proposed regulation specifies that the determination of what
constitutes the current market price, the methodology employed to
determine the current market price and the conclusion that a product of
Federal Prison Industries does not exceed that price is--you got it--
the sole responsibility of Federal Prison Industries.
That is the situation. They are supposed to buy at market price, but
they make a determination as to whether or not, in fact, what they are
forcing an agency to buy is being set at a market price.
The General Accounting Office reported in August of 1998:
The only limit the law imposes on Federal Prison
Industries' price is that it may not exceed the upper end--
Upper end--
of the current market price range.
Moreover, the manner in which Federal Prison Industries seeks to
establish the current market price range appears calculated to result
in a price far higher than the Department of Defense would pay under
any other circumstances. According to the proposed regulation codifying
FPI's pricing policies, ``a review of commercial catalog prices will be
used to establish a `range' for current market price.''
The contrast is very sharp because when the Department of Defense
buys from commercial vendors, it seeks to negotiate, and generally
obtains, a steep discount from catalog prices.
FPI appears to have difficulty even matching the undiscounted catalog
prices. Last August, the General Accounting Office compared Federal
Prison Industries' prices for 20 representative products to private
vendors' catalog prices for the same or comparable products and found
that for four of these products, FPI's price was higher than the price
offered by any private vendor. That is 4 out of 20. In 4 out of 20
cases, GAO found that the price FPI charged was higher than the price
offered by any private vendor. For five of the remaining products, the
FPI price was at the ``high end of the range.'' Those are the words of
the General Accounting Office. FPI's price was at the ``high end of the
range'' of prices offered by private vendors--ranking sixth, seventh,
seventh, eighth, and ninth of the 10 vendors reviewed. In other words,
for almost half of the FPI products reviewed, the FPI approach appeared
to be to charge the highest price possible rather than the lowest price
possible to the Federal consumer.
We have complaint after complaint from frustrated private sector
vendors asking us: Why can't we compete? Why are we in the private
sector precluded from bidding on an item?
Here is one vendor's letter:
Federal Prison Industries bid on this item, and simply
because Federal Prison Industries did, it had to be given to
Federal Prison Industries. FPI won the bid at $45 per unit.
My company bid $22 per unit. The way I see it, the Government
just overspent my tax dollars to the tune of $1,978. Do you
seriously believe that this type of procurement is cost-
effective? I lost business, my tax dollars were misused
because of unfair procurement practices mandated by Federal
regulations. This is a prime example, and I'm certain not the
only one, of how the procurement system is being misused and
small businesses in this country are being excluded from
competition with the full support of Federal regulations and
the seeming approval of Congress.
It is far past time . . . to require [FPI] to be competitive
for the benefit of all taxpayers.A third frustrated vendor, who had
been driven out of business by FPI, told a House committee:
Is it justice that Federal Prison Industries would step in
and take business away from a disabled Vietnam veteran who
was twice wounded fighting for our country . . . therefore
effectively destroying and bankrupting that . . . business
which the Veterans' Administration suggested he enter?
There is a very fundamental unfairness which exists in this system.
It is one that we need to correct. The Department of Defense took a
survey recently of DOD customers for Federal Prison Industries'
products. The results are eye-opening. The survey provided DOD
customers five categories in which to rate Federal Prison Industries'
products: excellent, good, average, fair, or poor.
According to the data reported jointly by the Department of Defense
and the Federal Prison Industries in April, a majority of Department of
Defense customers rated FPI as average, fair, or poor in price,
delivery, and as an overall supplier.
On price: 54 percent of the Department of Defense's electronics
customers, 70 percent of DOD clothing and textile customers, 46 percent
of DOD dorm and quarters furniture customers, 53 percent of DOD office
case goods customers, 57 percent of DOD systems furniture customers
rated FPI prices as average, fair, or poor.
On delivery, the same kind of figures: 50 percent of DOD electronics
customers rated FPI delivery as averaged, fair, or poor; 62 percent of
DOD clothing and textile customers rated FPI delivery as average, fair,
or poor. That did not make any difference. FPI said it was going to
sell, and once FPI made that determination, the Department had no
alternative. It does not make any difference whether the delivery is
lousy, whether the price is too high, whether the overall performance
is poor. It makes no difference. Forget competition. FPI said: We are
going to sell. Forget fairness to a business with workers in that
business. FPI said: Tough. You have to buy from us.
So the bottom line is that fully 35 percent of the Department of
Defense customers indicated they have had a problem with an FPI product
delivered in the last 12 months. The reason they are having problems is
because there is a lack of competition.
We think, given the fact that such a small amount of money is paid to
prisoners for their labor, that Federal Prison Industries could supply
these products much more cheaply than the private sector. But that is
not the case. The case is that the private sector very often can supply
these products to our agencies more cheaply than can the prison
industries. But if the Federal Prison Industries decides in its
unilateral, sole, exclusive judgment that it is going to supply the
Department of Defense, that is it. That is it. This is an injustice to
the people who have worked hard to put together a business. It is an
injustice to the people who work for those businesses.
This is one of those weird cases where you have business and labor
coming together before us on the same side of an issue. The American
Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, urges that this section remain in the
bill. We have the alert from the Chamber of Commerce as well. Members
of the Senate, business and labor--our good friend from Texas calls
those special interests, business and labor. People who have worked
hard to put together a business and people who work in those businesses
are not being allowed to compete. Sorry. Federal Prison Industries says
you are going to buy that product. That is what they tell the DOD. You
are going to buy it. You may not like the price, you may not like the
delivery, you may not like the quality, but we are not going to let
anybody else compete for that sale.
So that is the fundamental unfairness that this language would
correct. It does not tell the Department of Defense they cannot buy it
from Federal Prison Industries. It simply says that if the Department
of Defense determines on price or quality that the private sector can
do as well, then it--not the FPI; the Department of Defense--may
compete and determine whether or not they can save the taxpayers any
money.
I am going to close and then turn this over to my friend and my
colleague from Michigan for his comments. But I just want to read one
additional quote from the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy before
the National Security Committee of the House a couple years ago. He
said that the FPI monopoly on Government furniture contracts has
undermined the Navy's ability to improve living conditions for its
sailors.
Master Chief Petty Officer John Hagan said:
Speaking frankly, the [FPI] product is inferior, costs
more, and takes longer to procure. [The Federal Prison
Industries] has, in my opinion, exploited their special
status instead of making changes which would make
[[Page 10740]]
them more efficient and competitive. The Navy and other
Services need your support to change the law and have FPI
compete with [private sector] furniture manufacturers.
Without this change, we will not be serving Sailors or
taxpayers in the most effective and efficient way.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I am happy to yield time to my
distinguished colleague from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 24 minutes 48
seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. How much time would the Senator wish?
Mr. ABRAHAM. No more than 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
I suspect I will not use all of the time that I have been allotted,
but I do want to speak here today in opposition to the amendment before
us offered by the Senator from Texas.
Especially in light of the grave concerns that all of us share about
the readiness of our Armed Forces and the significant steps that
Congress took in the supplemental appropriations bill to address this
problem, as well as in the budget which we passed earlier this year, I
strongly believe that section 806 of the defense reauthorization bill
should be retained.
This is not because I think that having Federal prisoners working is
not important. To the contrary, I think it is very important. I firmly
believe that the development through work, self-discipline and other
virtues that enable people to lead productive lives is probably the
single greatest hope for rehabilitation in a prison setting. Indeed, it
is disappointing that, according to the May 20 Wall Street Journal,
only 17 percent of Federal prisoners work under the current Federal
Prison Industries program.
But providing for national defense is the Federal Government's
paramount responsibility. Given the very serious problems we are facing
with respect to our military readiness, we need to take every possible
step to rectify these problems as quickly and as effectively as
possible.
There is no question in my mind that the requirement that the
Department of Defense contract with FPI for certain products, and
giving FPI a veto over the Defense Department's going elsewhere, is an
obstacle to our efforts to fix these problems. The routine, significant
failure by FPI to provide goods that the Defense Department has
contracted for on a timely basis--almost half of the time in 1995, and
over a third of the time in 1996--is simply unacceptable. To have the
Defense Department depend on FPI for over 300 different products under
these circumstances is also simply unacceptable.
Finally, in this era of tight budgets, to be spending precious
defense resources on FPI goods that we could be obtaining at lower
prices from the private sector is also unacceptable.
We should obviously address these problems by allowing the Department
of Defense to go elsewhere and to do so without getting advance
permission from FPI. I am glad the Armed Services Committee, at the
prompting of my colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan, Senator
Levin, has so provided in the reauthorization bill that recently passed
out of committee.
I would add that the provision adopted by the Armed Services
Committee still requires the Department of Defense to give FPI the
opportunity to compete for contracts for almost all products and only
permits the Department of Defense to go elsewhere if it determines that
the product being offered by FPI is not comparable in price, quality,
and time of delivery to products available from the private sector.
The only exceptions are for national security systems, products
integral to or embedded in a product not available from FPI, or
products that cost less than $2,500. In those instances, under section
806, the Department of Defense does not have to seek a bid from FPI,
but in all other instances DOD would continue to be required to do so.
It will be argued that we cannot follow this course without
jeopardizing another important Federal policy, that of putting Federal
inmates to work. But if that were really our only option, we would be
facing a much harder choice, since we would arguably be having to
choose between pursuing a course critical to securing tranquility
abroad and a course important to securing domestic tranquility. I do
not believe we are really faced with that dilemma.
Rather, I am convinced that the limits this legislation imposes on
the FPI monopoly can plainly be offset by expanding other opportunities
for prisoners to work. This could be done, for example, by having the
FPI focus on products that we do not produce domestically and that we
are now importing from abroad. Or it could be done by putting prisoners
to work on functions that are currently being assigned to government
entities such as recycling.
It will be argued that we should come up with the new opportunities
first and then consider proposals along the lines of section 806 if the
other options prove workable. I disagree. I believe we should put the
needs of our national defense ahead of the needs of prisoners. I have
no real question that if we do so, we will discover that in fact we are
able to devise policies that adequately address both sets of needs.
I will just close by restating what I said last year in a similar
debate. None of us who are advocating a change in policy here are
advocating the elimination of work requirements for Federal prisoners.
But when Federal prisoners in the work they do are taking jobs away
from law-abiding Americans who have never committed a crime, then I
think we have to reexamine our policy.
To me, it makes sense to devise a prison work policy that does not
injure law-abiding citizens. I believe that requiring the FPI to be
competitive in its bidding process and not granting it a monopoly are
the right way to achieve this end. That way the taxpayers are protected
from paying excessively for furniture or other items that are produced
by the Prison Industries, and those individuals working in the private
sector in competition with the Prison Industries have a legitimate
opportunity to secure government contracts. To me, that is the American
way, the competitive process.
To me, if the Federal Prison Industries can't be competitive in that
setting, where it has so much of a subsidy advantage to begin with,
then it seems to me that the system isn't working the way it should be.
I hope that we will vote to retain in place section 806 and that, at
least in the specific context of the Department of Defense, we will
follow the lead that has already been laid out by Senator Levin in the
authorization bill as it comes to the floor.
To me, that is a sensible course for us to pursue. It strikes the
right balance. It by no means eliminates the work requirement for
prisoners, but it does provide people who are law-abiding citizens,
companies that are law-abiding companies, a chance to do business with
the government in a very vital and sensitive area, specifically that of
national security. To me, that is a sensible middle ground. Therefore,
I hope that our colleagues will vote in opposition to this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. This is a matter which the Armed Services Committee
considered with some care and considerable debate. It is not as if we
just accepted it. There was discussion, and our former chairman spoke
very strongly on behalf of the other side of the issue.
I am just astonished that we cannot seem to convince the prison group
that competition would be good. It would raise the quality. That is
what concerns so many of us on the committee. It would provide
incentives for the Federal Prison Industries to deliver quality goods
in a timely fashion and at a reasonable price. That is what this whole
country is predicated on.
This is interesting. The Department of the Air Force gets 2 million
plus in launchers, guided-missile launchers,
[[Page 10741]]
fiber optic cable assemblies. People think they are doing little,
simple things, crafts and so forth, but there is a lot of high-tech
equipment at the Department of Defense.
Here is the Army, another guided-missile remote control; the Army,
launchers, rocket and pyrotech; the Army, fiber rope, cordage; the
Army, radio and TV communications equipment; the Army, antennas, wave
guides and related; the Army, fiber optic cable assemblies.
I mean, these are hardly simple matters. These are very complicated
systems. We simply have to have quality for the Department of Defense.
This is what concerns me.
I could go on into some of the Navy engine electrical systems, all
kinds of high-tech stuff listed in here. You see the office furniture,
the office supplies. Here is one for some armor. In other words, we are
talking about serious business for the Department of Defense. It is
very serious business. We cannot be giving the strong disadvantage in
the competitive world to the prisons and have them supply inferior
equipment. I strongly urge Senators to vote against this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I had
the good fortune of having Senator Byrd, Senator Hatch and Senator
Thurmond speak on behalf of my amendment, and those are riches you
don't turn down. But there have been many points made that I have not
had an opportunity to respond to. If the Senator is not going to use
the rest of his time, I would like about 4 minutes to respond. I ask
unanimous consent that I might have it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sorry. I was discussing something with
the chairman. I know that he is conscience of the time. I am wondering
whether he might repeat the unanimous consent request so that we could
both hear it.
Mr. GRAMM. I am sorry. I didn't hear.
Mr. LEVIN. I apologize. I was discussing something with the chairman.
We didn't hear the unanimous consent request relative to time, at least
I didn't.
Mr. GRAMM. I do not want to throw off the vote, but I made an opening
statement. I had several other of my colleagues speak on behalf of my
amendment more articulately than I was able to, and I am grateful, but
I would like to have 4 minutes to sort of answer some of the points
that have been made. It just turned out, because people that were for
the amendment came to the floor, that they all spoke before any of
those that were opposed to it had the opportunity to speak. So if it
doesn't mess up our timetable, I would like to have 4 minutes to
respond to some of the issues that have been raised.
Mr. WARNER. We certainly can accede to that. It is a perfectly
reasonable request. I think my colleague and I will be just about ready
to yield back the balance of our time. Then we will turn to the
amendment by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. The first
order of business will be for him to amend the amendment that is at the
desk. Then we will complete the debate on that, and we should meet the
target of about 7:00 to have two stacked votes.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, how much time is left to
the opponents of Senator Gramm's amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 12 minutes 30 seconds. The
proponents' time has been exhausted.
Mr. LEVIN. How many seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds, 12 minutes 30 seconds.
The Senator from Texas is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, first of all, let me make it clear, the
Defense Department does not support this amendment. The Defense
Department issued a joint report with the Department of Prisons, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, outlining ways of improving the system that
required no legislation. The administration, on behalf of the Defense
Department and the Department of Justice, opposes the Levin provision
and supports the amendment that we have offered to strike it.
The Attorney General supports our motion to strike the Levin
amendment, as do many groups such as the National Center for Victims of
Crime.
It is obviously a very strong argument with me to talk about, ``why
not competition?'' The problem is, you have to understand the history
that competition was the rule prior to the Depression. Prior to the
Depression, virtually everyone in prison in America worked on average
12 hours a day, 6 days a week. But during the Depression, we passed
three pieces of legislation, all of them driven by special interests,
triggered by the Depression, which made it illegal for prisoners to
work to sell goods in the market. There had been previous provisions so
that they didn't glut the market in one area, but the problem is, now
it is criminal for prisoners to work to produce anything to sell in
America.
When my colleagues say why not have competition, my answer is, yes,
let's have it. But you cannot have it without letting prison labor
compete, and now that is prohibited all over America. The only thing
left for prisoners today is to produce things that the Government uses.
That is the only thing that we have not prohibited by law. As a result,
we have 1.1 million prisoners and about 900,000 of them have no work to
do.
If the amendment of Senator Levin passed, 60 percent of the prison
labor at the Federal level in America would be eliminated because there
would be no work for these people to do. So this is an argument about
competition that sounds great until you understand that Government,
driven by the same groups that support this amendment, eliminated the
ability to use prison labor to produce and sell anything.
When you are talking about the taxpayer, it sounds great. But what
about the taxpayer that is spending $22,000 a year to keep somebody in
prison and we are not allowing them to work? If taxpayers are working,
why are they better than taxpayers? Why should they not have to work?
Why can't we find things in the private sector for them to produce? If
we can do that, I would support this amendment. I know that many of the
people who support it would never do that.
The Defense Department is not for this amendment. They are not for
the Levin amendment. They are not objecting to the provisions. In fact,
they just put out a joint report saying the Defense Department supports
the program with these reforms, which they can undertake without
legislation.
So, basically, I believe that the system is not perfect, but it is
basically a good system where prices are negotiated and the Defense
Department gets 90 percent of the waivers that they seek. If they don't
think the quality is right or the price is right or the delivery is
right, they can ask for a waiver. In 90 percent of the cases, they get
the waiver.
This is basically an amendment, I am sad to say, that would idle 60
percent of Federal prisoners. It would allow private companies to come
in and take the business. But the point is, when we have full
employment in America and we have a million prisoners idle, how does it
make sense to prohibit them from working? I thank my colleague for
giving me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the language in the bill that the Senator
from Texas seeks to strike makes it possible for the private sector to
compete. That sounds so fundamental in our country that maybe it comes
as a shock that I would even suggest that you need to have language in
a bill to permit the private sector to do this. But we do.
We just want to make it legal for the private sector to offer a
product to its Government, our Government, and not to have Federal
Prison Industries say: Sorry, you cannot bid. It is almost bizarre to
me that we would have to pass
[[Page 10742]]
any kind of legislation for that to come about, but we do because under
the current law and regulations, Federal Prison Industries has the
sole, exclusive determining voice. If it says that its product is
within a range in the market--maybe at the high end of that range, and
they may be wrong--but once FPI says that, that is it; private business
cannot compete.
In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week,
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, David Oliver,
described the results of the survey we referred to.
He said the following:
I think if you looked at the study, you would see that
people were generally not satisfied with Federal Prison
Industries as a provider. Essentially, with regard to
efficiency, timeliness, and best value, they found that
Federal Prison Industries was worse than the other people
they bought from.
Now, we know that the administration has decided to oppose this
change, to prohibit the private sector from bidding on things that
Federal Prison Industries says it wants to supply exclusively. So we
understand what the Department of Defense's official position is. But I
also understand what the testimony of their acquisition people is. The
study shows that people were generally not satisfied with Federal
Prison Industries as a provider with regard to efficiency, timeliness,
and best value. They found that Federal Prison Industries was worse
than the other people they bought from.
I don't believe for one minute that Federal Prison Industries is
going to be able to sell anything to the Department of Defense just
because they are going to have to compete. They have such a huge
advantage in terms of cost and price of labor that they are going to be
able to sell a huge amount. But they are going to have to compete.
If a private company can outbid them or provide the same product at a
cheaper price, then the private company is going to get it. But for the
Senator from Texas to say, suddenly, that wipes out all of the sales to
the Department of Defense, that is a terrible indictment about what
Federal Prison Industries is now doing. That would mean they can't
compete on anything they are selling to the Department of Defense. That
is a huge exaggeration. It is not the case.
But it is the case that now they don't have to compete when they
decide that the Department of Defense must buy that missile part. If
Federal Prison Industries says the Department of Defense must buy that
missile part Senator Warner referred to, that has to happen--even
though a private contractor can sell a better quality at a better
price. Once FPI, in its unilateral judgment, says we can supply it
within a price range of what the private sector can do, that is it, no
competition. DOD can't bid it out--the opposite of what we should be
doing in this free enterprise society of ours.
Mr. President, I hope the language in the Senate bill will be
retained and that the amendment of the Senator from Texas to strike
that language will be defeated.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague. Again, it was
carefully considered by the committee. It has very fundamental
objectives: competition, fairness, and to get quality.
Mr. President, I am anxious to complete this amendment. I believe the
Senator from Texas has finished his presentation?
Mr. GRAMM. Yes, I have.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield back our time.
Mr. WARNER. I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Amendment No. 383
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate returns to the amendment of the
Senator from Pennsylvania. The Senator from Pennsylvania controls 5
minutes 30 seconds, and the Senator from Virginia controls 3 minutes 20
seconds.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I note that will bring us very close, if
not precisely, to the hour of 7 o'clock, at which time the managers
represented to the leadership and other Senators that two back-to-back
votes would commence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides, simply stated,
that there shall be no funds expended for ground forces in Yugoslavia,
in Kosovo, unless specifically authorized by the Congress.
This amendment is designed to uphold the Constitution of the United
States, which grants the exclusive authority to declare war to the
Congress of the United States. Regrettably, there has been a
significant erosion of this constitutional authority, as Presidents
have taken over this power without having the Congress stand up. The
one place where the Congress clearly has authority to determine
military action is by controlling the purse strings. This amendment
goes to the heart of that issue by prohibiting that spending.
It has been a lively and spirited debate. Now we will have an
opportunity to say whether the Senate will seek to uphold the
Constitution and whether the Senate will seek to uphold its own
institutional authority--the institutional authority of the Congress to
determine whether the United States should be involved in war.
A few of the problems which have been raised have been clarified. The
amendment has been modified, and I ask that it formally be approved
with the concurrence of the managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no objection to the Senator
sending to the desk the amendment as modified.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the general counsel of the committee for helping
me on the modification that we have worked out so that the restriction
will not apply to intelligence operations, to rescue operations, or to
military emergencies.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania add me as a
cosponsor?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Thurmond be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 383), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title X, insert the following:
SEC. . LIMITATION ON DEPLOYMENT OF GROUND TROOPS IN THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA.
(a) None of the funds authorized or otherwise available to
the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for
the deployment of ground troops of the United States Armed
Forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except for
peacekeeping personnel, unless authorized by a declaration of
war or a joint resolution authorizing the use of military
force.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to
intelligence operations, or to missions to rescue United
States military personnel or citizens of the United States,
or otherwise meet military emergencies, in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the main argument against this amendment
has been that the President has said that he would come to Congress in
advance of deploying ground troops. He made that commitment in a
meeting at the White House on April 28. Then he sent a letter, which is
substantially equivocal, saying that he will fully consult with the
Congress, and that he would ask for congressional support before
introducing U.S. ground forces into Kosovo, into a nonpermissive
environment.
That doesn't go far enough.
The distinguished chairman has reported that the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff have confirmed that there would be congressional
authorization.
That doesn't go far enough.
We are a government of laws--not a government of men. And minds may
be changed. We ought to be sure we have this nailed down.
[[Page 10743]]
This amendment is entirely consistent with what the Senate has
heretofore done--58 to 41 to authorize air strikes but no ground
forces. Seventy-seven Senators voted not to grant the President
authority to use whatever force he chose. To remain consistent, those
77 Senators would have to say, we are not going to allow you to use
ground forces unless you come to us for approval, just as we said we
will not allow you to use whatever force you choose, in effect, without
coming to us for prior approval. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of
small minds, but consistency and the institutional prerogatives of the
Congress and the Senate call for an affirmative vote, and 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.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains for me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 50 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan wishes to
address the amendment. We are together on it in the strongest possible
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, very briefly, this amendment would send the
worst possible signal to Milosevic, which is don't worry, weather the
storm--that even though there is going to be gridlock in the Congress,
you will be the beneficiary of any gridlock and any effort that
authorizes in advance the use of ground forces. This is not the message
which we should be sending to Milosevic--that he would be the
beneficiary of the congressional gridlock, which would almost certainly
occur before any such resolutions could be passed.
I hope we will not send that signal to Milosevic. I think our troops
deserve better. Our commanders deserve better.
The administration believes so strongly in this that a veto would
almost certainly occur, if this provision were in, and understandably
so, because the hands of our commanders in the field would be tied by
this resolution. They would have to come to Congress to see whether or
not the terms were met. That is not the way to fight either a war or to
engage in combat.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the course of the afternoon, as I said
to my good friend and colleague, some 40 Senators have received the
benefit of a full debate with the Secretaries of State and Defense, and
the President's National Security Adviser, Mr. Berger, and with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Three times--twice by this Senator, one
by another Senator--this very issue was posed to the national security
team. They said without any equivocation whatsoever that the President
would formally come to the Congress and seek legislation, not unlike
what is described in this amendment prior to any change. In other
words, the President of the United States is presently unchanged in the
course of action that he is recommending to other leaders of the NATO
nations, and the matter remains and will not be changed with reference
to ground troops unless the President comes up and seeks from the
Congress of the United States formal legislative action.
I say to my good friend that I think we have achieved, in essence,
what he seeks. As I pointed out in my first comments this morning and,
indeed, in the title to the first amendment prior to the amending by
the Senator from Pennsylvania, he referred to the War Powers Act, this
is precisely what this debate is--a debate over the War Powers Act.
That debate has not in my 21 years in this body ever been resolved, and
I doubt it is going to be resolved on this vote.
I yield the floor and yield back the time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I reject the argument of the Senator from
Virginia who wants to rely on assurances. This is a government of laws,
and not men, and you get it done by this amendment.
I reject the argument of the Senator from Michigan who says it is a
bad signal to Milosevic. Whatever signal goes to Milosevic from this
amendment has already been sent by the assurances of the President.
It is a bad signal to America to tell the Country that the Congress
is delegating its authority to involve this Nation in war to the
President. We don't have the authority to delegate our constitutional
authority. Our job is to analyze the facts and let the President come
to us to state a case for the use of ground forces. I am prepared to
listen. But, on this record, we ought to maintain the institutional
authority of Congress and uphold the Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, does any time remain on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, 10 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Could I use the 10 seconds?
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Michigan can use 5, and I will use 5.
Take 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Department of Defense strongly opposes
the amendment because it would unacceptably put at risk the lives of
U.S. military personnel.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a vote against this amendment is
consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the United
States.
I move to table, and 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 agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 383, as modified. On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Chafee
Cochran
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--48
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 392
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we yield back time on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRAMM. 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 agreeing to amendment No.
392. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
[[Page 10744]]
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
NAYS--51
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bunning
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 392) was rejected.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have a motion to reconsider. I enter a
motion to reconsider the vote, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to advise the Senate with regard to the
important business remaining to be performed tonight, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate now proceed to an amendment to be offered by
Senators McCain and Levin re: BRAC and that there be 3\1/2\ hours of
debate equally divided between the proponents and opponents.
I further ask consent that all debate time be consumed during
Tuesday, May 25, except for 2 hours, to be equally divided, and to
resume at 11:45 a.m. on Wednesday.
I further ask consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the
BRAC amendment on Wednesday at 1:45 p.m. and no amendments be in order
to the amendment prior to the 1:45 p.m. vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, in light of this agreement, there
will be no reinstitution of a vote tonight. It is not the leader's
desire; I wish to make that clear.
Mr. GRAMM. My intention would be to try to have the reconsideration
tomorrow.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder whether or not we might be able to
schedule an amendment earlier in the morning for Senator Kerrey.
Mr. WARNER. We are working on that.
Mr. LEVIN. At 10:30; is that the effort?
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. Let me just finish this and then I think
it will be clear.
Now, Mr. President, if I may continue, in light of this agreement,
there will be no further votes this evening. Senators interested in the
BRAC debate should remain this evening. The Senate will resume the DOD
bill at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, and two amendments are expected to be
offered prior to the 11:45 a.m. resumption of the BRAC debate.
Therefore, at least one vote, if not more votes, will occur beginning
at 1:45 p.m. on Wednesday.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could inquire of the chairman as to the two
amendments he is referring to.
Mr. WARNER. One under consideration is Senator Brownback's, and it
relates to India and Pakistan and the current sanctions.
Mr. LEVIN. What was the other amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Senator Robert Kerrey on strategic nuclear delivery
systems.
Mr. LEVIN. And it is the hope of the chairman that both of those be
debated in the morning?
Mr. WARNER. I would hope so, together with the remainder of BRAC.
Mr. LEVIN. I hope that during this evening we will be able to try to
schedule timing for those amendments, if possible.
Mr. WARNER. I would be happy to----
Mr. LEVIN. I do not know the status, particularly, of the first one,
but I would like to work on that this evening.
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Amendment No. 393
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Levin,
Senator Bryan, Senator Leahy, Senator Kohl, Senator Lieberman, Senator
Robb, Senator Kyl, Senator Hagel, and Senator Chafee, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Chafee, proposes an
amendment numbered 393.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 450, below line 25, add the following:
SEC. 2822. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT BASE CLOSURE ROUND
COMMENCING IN 2001.
(a) Commission Matters.--
(1) Appointment.--Subsection (c)(1) of section 2902 of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of
title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is
amended--
(A) in subparagraph (b)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new clause (iv):
``(iv) by no later than May 1, 2001, in the case of members
of the Commission whose terms will expire on September 30,
2002.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or for 1995 in
clause (iii) of such subparagraph'' and inserting ``, for
1995 in clause (iii) of that subparagraph, or for 2001 in
clause (iv) of that subparagraph''.
(2) Meetings.--Subsection (e) of that section is amended by
striking ``and 1995'' and inserting ``1995, and 2001, and in
2002 during the period ending on September 30 of that year''.
(3) Funding.--Subsection (k) of that section is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph (4):
``(4) If no funds are appropriated to the Commission by the
end of the second session of the 106th Congress for the
activities of the Commission that commence in 2001, the
Secretary may transfer to the Commission for purposes of its
activities under this part that commence in that year such
funds as the Commission may require to carry out such
activities. The Secretary may transfer funds under the
preceding sentence from any funds available to the Secretary.
Funds so transferred shall remain available to the Commission
for such purposes until expended.''.
(5) Termination.--Subsection (1) of that section is amended
by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting ``September
30, 2002''.
(b) Procedures.--
(1) Force-structure plan.--Subsection (a)(1) of section
2903 of that Act is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary shall also submit to Congress a
force-structure plan for fiscal year 2002 that meets the
requirements of the preceding sentence not later than March
30, 2001.''.
(2) Selection criteria.--Subsection (b) of such section
2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and by no later than
March 1, 2001, for purposes of activities of the Commission
under this part that commence in 2001,'' after ``December 31,
1990,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(i) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and by no later
than April 15, 2001, for purposes of activities of the
Commission under this part that commence in 2001,'' after
``February 15, 1991,''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, or enacted on
or before May 15, 2001, in the
[[Page 10745]]
case of criteria published and transmitted under the
preceding sentence in 2001'' after ``March 15, 1991''.
(3) Department of defense recommendations.--Subsection (c)
of such section 2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and March 1, 1995,''
and inserting ``March 1, 1995, and September 1, 2001,'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4)(A) In making recommendations to the Commission under
this subsection in 2001, the Secretary shall consider any
notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a
military installation that the government would approve of
the closure or realignment of the installation.
``(B) Notwithstanding the requirement in subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall make the recommendations referred to in
that subparagraph based on the force-structure plan and final
criteria otherwise applicable to such recommendations under
this section.
``(C) The recommendations made by the Secretary under this
subsection in 2001 shall include a statement of the result of
the consideration of any notice described in subparagraph (A)
that is received with respect to an installation covered by
such recommendations. The statement shall set forth the
reasons for the result.''; and
(D) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``paragraph (5)(B)''
and inserting ``paragraph (6)(B)''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``24 hours'' and
inserting ``48 hours''.
(4) Commission review and recommendations.--Subsection (d)
of such section 2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``or by no later than
February 1, 2002, in the case of recommendations in 2001,''
after ``pursuant to subsection (e),'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or after February 1,
2002, in the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after ``under
this subsection.''; and
(C) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting ``or by no later than
October 15 in the case of such recommendations in 2001,''
after ``such recommendations,''.
(5) Review by president.--Subsection (e) of such section
2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or by no later than
February 15, 2002, in the case of recommendations in 2001,''
after ``under subsection (d),'';
(B) in the second sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting
``or by no later than March 15, 2002, in the case of 2001,''
after ``the year concerned,''; and
(C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or by April 1, 2002,
in the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after ``under this
part,'';
(c) Closure and Realignment of Installations.--Section
2904(a) of that Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
``(3) carry out the privatization in place of a military
installation recommended for closure or realignment by the
Commission in a report in 2002 only if privatization in place
is a method of closure or realignment of the installation
specified in the recommendation of the Commission in the
report and is determined to be the most cost effective method
of implementation of the recommendation;''.
(d) Relationship to Other Base Closure Authority.--Section
2909(a) of that Act is amended by striking ``December 31,
1995,'' and inserting ``September 30, 2002,''.
(e) Technical and Clarifying Amendments.--
(1) COmmencement of period for notice of interest in
property for homeless.--Section 2905(b)(7)(D)(ii)(I) of that
Act is amended by striking ``that date'' and inserting ``the
date of publication of such determination in a newspaper of
general circulation in the communities in the vicinity of the
installation under subparagraph (B)(i)(IV)''.
(2) Other clarifying amendments.--
(A) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or
realignment'' after ``closure'' each place it appears in the
following provisions:
(i) Section 2905(b)(3).
(ii) Section 2905(b)(4)(B)(ii).
(iii) Section 2905(b)(5).
(iv) Section 2905(b)(7)(B)(iv).
(v) Section 2905(b)(7)(N).
(vi) Section 2910(10)(B)
(B) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or
realigned'' after ``closed'' each place it appears in the
following provisions:
(i) Section 2905(b)(3)(C)(ii).
(ii) Section 2905(b)(3)(D).
(iii) Section 2905(b)(3)(E).
(iv) Section 2905(b)(4)(A).
(v) Section 2905(b)(5)(A).
(vi) Section 3910(9).
(vii) Section 2910(10).
(C) Section 2905(e)(1)(B) of that Act is amended by
inserting ``, or realigned or to be realigned,'' after
``closed or to be closed'.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes a single round
of U.S. military installation realignment and base closures to occur in
the year 2001.
It is an argument and a debate that we have had several times in the
past few years, but obviously the argument deserves to be ventilated
again. I am reminded, in considering this amendment, of a comment made
by my old dear and beloved friend, Morris Udall, of my home State of
Arizona, who once said after a long discussion of an issue that had
been fairly well ventilated:
Everything that could possibly be said on this issue has
been said, only not everyone has said it.
I think that, again, will be the case with this base closing
amendment, because we have been around this track on several occasions.
But I do have to credit the imagination and inventiveness of the
opponents of the base closing round because they continue to invent new
reasons to oppose a round of base closings. They are charming ideas.
One of them you will probably hear is that base closings don't save
money. That is a very interesting and entertaining argument. I wish we
had held to that argument after World War II was over, because we would
still have some 150 bases in my State of Arizona, which I am sure would
be a significant benefit to our economy.
Another aspect of this debate you will hear is that the issue of base
closings has been politicized and, therefore, we can't have one. I
think my friend, the distinguished chairman, has come up with a new and
entertaining argument that every time we go through a base closing,
every town, city, and State goes through a very difficult period of
time. I agree with him. I certainly agree with him as he will pose that
argument. But that doesn't in the slightest change the requirement that
we need to close some bases.
I have to tell my friend, the chairman, it doesn't ring true to stand
and lament the state of the military, our declining readiness, our lack
of modernization of the force, all of the evils, the recruitment
problems, and the failure to fund much-needed programs, and then not
support what is clearly most needed, according to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and according to the Secretary of Defense--and
according, really, to every objective observer of our military
establishment.
Why is it that it took us a month to get Apache helicopters from
Germany to Albania? Why is it that we are now hearing if we decided
tomorrow to prepare for ground troops--an idea which was soundly
rejected by this body--but if finally the recognition came about that
we are really not winning this conflict, that Mr. Milosevic is
achieving all of his objectives, and we continue to hear great reports
about how we have destroyed so much of their capability, yet, the
ethnic cleansing is nearing completion and Mr. Milosevic has more
troops now than less, why is it that it would take many, many weeks, if
not months, to get a force in place in order to move into Kosovo to
help right the atrocities that have been committed there? It is because
we have not restructured our military establishment. It is that simple.
The military establishment in the cold war, very correctly, was
structured for a massive conventional tank war on the plains of Europe,
the central plains of Europe. That was what our military was all about,
and that was the major threat to our security. And now we have a
military, which we have failed to restructure, we have failed to make
mobile, we have failed to become capable to move anyplace in the
world--in this case rather a short distance, from Germany to Albania--
and, once there, decisively impact the battlefield equation. There are
many reasons for this.
There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago
about how the Army had plans to restructure; yet, at the end of the
day, they failed to do so for various reasons--by the way, the lesson
being that the military will not restructure itself. It has to be done
with an active role by the Congress.
But to sit here, as we are today, with all these shortages, where all
of us are lamenting the incredible problems we have; yet, we then
support a base structure which cannot be justified for any logical
reason, is something that I
[[Page 10746]]
think causes us great credibility problems--first, with people who pay
attention to these kinds of things, and, second, at the end of the day
with the American people.
I say this with full realization and appreciation that there are
bases in my home State that may be in danger of being closed. There was
a base closed in the round of base closings before the last one, which,
by the way, is now generating more revenue for the State of Arizona
than it did while it was a functioning military base. But setting that
aside, when the base was closed, of course, there was great trauma.
There was great dislocation among many civilians who worked out at
Williams Air Force Base. But the fact is that we have to reduce the
size of our base structures or we will continue to not be able to fund
the much-needed improvements that are absolutely vital to us being able
to conduct a conflict or war.
Our former colleague, Secretary Cohen, says.
Nevertheless, no other reform even comes close to offering
the potential savings afforded by even a single round of
BRAC. There simply is no substitute for base closure and
realignment.
The two additional rounds under consideration will
ultimately save $20 billion and generate $3.6 billion
annually,
Moreover, the Department continues to streamline the
process, making it even easier for communities to dispose of
base property and to create new jobs in the future.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote:
We are writing to you to express our strong and unified
support for authorization for additional rounds of base
closures . . . .
* * * * *
The importance of BRAC goes beyond savings, however. BRAC
is the single most effective tool available to the Services
to realign their infrastructure to meet the needs of changing
organizations and to respond to new ways of doing business.
No other initiative can substitute for BRAC in terms of
ability to reduce and reshape our infrastructure. Simply
stated, our military judgment is that further base closures
are absolutely necessary.
Signed by all of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Cohen and the
letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Defense,
1000 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Carl: As I have on many occasions, I want to convey my
strong support for approval of additional rounds of Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) authority as part of the FY
2000 Department of Defense Authorization Bill, which the
Senate Armed Services Committee is marking up this week.
As you are aware, the first three rounds of BRAC have
already yielded some $3.9 billion net savings in FY 1999 and
will generate more than $25 billion by the year 2003. These
savings have proven absolutely critical to sustaining ongoing
operations and current levels of military readiness,
modernization and the quality of life of our men and women in
uniform. Even still, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
points out that the Department of Defense continues to retain
excess infrastructure, which we estimate at roughly 23
percent beyond our needs.
As you know, we are aggressively reforming the Department's
business operations and support infrastructure to realize
savings wherever possible. Nevertheless, no other reform even
comes close to offering the potential savings afforded by
even a single round of BRAC. There simply is no substitute
for base closure and realignment.
The two additional rounds under consideration by the
Committee will ultimately save $20 billion and generate $3.6
billion dollars annually. Both the Congressional Budget
Office and the GAO affirm the reasonableness and credibility
of our estimates for savings from BRAC. In exchange for
property that we neither want nor need, we can direct $3.6
billion on an annual basis into weapons that give our troops
a life-saving edge, into training that keeps our forces the
finest in the world, and into the quality of life of military
families.
I well appreciate both the difficult decision you and your
colleagues now face, as well as the legitimate concerns of
bases and communities potentially affected by additional
rounds of BRAC. At the same time, many success stories across
the nation prove that base closure and realignment can
actually lead to increased economic growth. In fact, the GAO
recently noted that in most post-BRAC communities incomes are
actually rising faster and unemployment rates are lower than
the national average. Moreover, the Department continues to
streamline the process, making it even easier for communities
to dispose of base property and to create new jobs in the
future.
The Department's ability to properly support America's men
and women in uniform today and to sustain them into the
future hinge in great measure on realizing the critical
savings that only BRAC can provide. As such, the Chairman and
Joint Chiefs are unanimous in their support of our
legislative proposals, and I most strongly solicit your
support and that of your colleagues.
Bill Cohen.
____
Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, May 10, 1999.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to you to express our
strong and unified support for authorization for additional
rounds of base closures when the Senate Armed Services
Committee marks up the FY 2000 Department of Defense
Authorization Bill next week.
Previous BRAC rounds are already producing savings--$3.9
billion net in 1999 and $25 billion thorugh 2003. We believe
that two additional rounds of BRAC will produce even more
savings--an additional $3.6 billion each year after
implementation. This translates directly into the programs,
forces, and budgets that support our national military
strategy. Without BRAC, we will not have the maximum possible
resources to field and operate future forces while protecting
quality of life for our military members. We will also be
less able to provide future forces with the modern equipment
that is central to the plans and vision we have for
transforming the force.
The Department's April 1998 report to Congress demonstrates
that 23 percent excess capacity exists. The Congressional
Budget Office agrees that our approach to estimating excess
capacity yields a credible estimate. The General Accounting
Office also agrees that DOD continues to retain excess
capacity.
The importance of BRAC goes beyond savings, however. BRAC
is the single most effective tool available to the Services
to realign their infrastructure to meet the needs of changing
organizations and to respond to new ways of doing business.
No other initiative can substitute for BRAC in terms of
ability to reduce and reshape infrastructure. Simply stated,
our military judgment is that further base closures are
absolutely necessary.
BRAC will enable us to better shape the quality of the
forces protecting America in the 21st century. As you
consider the 2000 budget, we ask you to support this
proposal.
General Henry H. Shelton, USA,
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General Dennis J. Reimer, USA,
Chief of Staff, US Army.
General Michael E. Ryan, USAF,
Chief of Staff, US Air Force.
General Joseph W. Ralston, USAF,
Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN,
Chief of Naval Operations.
General Charles C. Krulak, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I said at the beginning of my remarks,
we have been over this many, many times. The annual net savings from
previous BRAC rounds will grow from almost $4 billion this year to
$5.67 billion per year by 2001. The savings are real. They are coming
sooner and are greater than anticipated.
GAO recently noted that in most communities where bases were closed
incomes are actually rising faster and unemployment rates are lower
than the national average. Additionally, a provision in the bill allows
for the no-cost transfer of property from the military to the community
in areas that are affected by the closures.
Our Armed Services are carrying the burden of managing and paying for
an estimated 23 percent of excess infrastructure that will cost $3.6
billion this year alone, $3.6 billion that could be spent in efforts to
retrain our pilots who are getting out faster than we can train them.
It could be spent on recruiting qualified men and women of which there
are significant shortfalls, especially in the U.S. Navy. It could be
spent on retaining the highly qualified men and women who are leaving
the Armed Forces in droves. There are so many things we can do with an
additional $3.6 billion. But it will probably not happen.
I want to tell my colleagues that occasionally we lose credibility
around here because of some of the things we
[[Page 10747]]
do--the pork barrel spending, for example, that seems to be on the rise
rather than decreasing, if you had the chance to examine the
supplemental emergency bill we just passed. That, of course, is not
pleasant for me to contemplate.
But when we are fooling around with national security, when we are
fooling around with our Nation's ability to defend our vital national
interests in these very unsettling times, then I would argue that we
bear a heavy responsibility.
This is a simple amendment--one round, year 2001. The Commission is
not appointed until May 2001. So this President does not have any hand
in the appointment of a base closing commission. We really need two
rounds. But this is at the request of the Senator from Michigan. It
will only be one round.
Savings over the next 4 years are conservatively estimated to reach
$25 billion. We probably won't do it. We probably won't do it. We
couldn't do it in the Armed Services Committee, the committee that is
supposed to have the most knowledgeable people on national defense.
Again, there are really some of the most interesting arguments I have
ever heard. We save money by not closing bases. That is an interesting
argument. Again, I wish we had never closed a base after World War II,
using that logic. Or perhaps we should build more bases. The fact is
that this causes discomfort to towns, communities, and States around
the country when a base closing commission is appointed. I agree with
that. I am sorry that happens. I stack that discomfort up against the
fact that we still have 11,000 enlisted men and women on food stamps.
I hope we will have the American people at least weigh in on this
issue, because they understand. They get it. They get what is going on
here. They get why we are not having a base closing round when we need
it. They know why it is being done. It will not pass but for one simple
reason; that is, strictly parochial concerns that somehow there may be
some political backlash associated with the closure of a base. I find
that disgraceful.
I appeal again to the better angels of our nature, and recognize that
every military expert within the military establishment, both within
the Government and without, says that we need to close bases. We need
to have a base closing round, and we do not have to make it political.
We have put in every possible constraint to prevent there being so
many. We need to do it soon. Otherwise, we will continue to suffer in
our capability. We will continue to suffer in our readiness. We will
continue to suffer in our modernization. But most of all, these brave
young men and women who serve our country will be shortchanged because
we will not have adequate funds.
I know a lot of these young people do not vote. I know a lot of them
don't even get absentee ballots. Many of them are stationed far away.
But I think perhaps we ought to have concern about them in how these
funds can improve their lives and keep many of them in the military and
keep our Nation ready to defend itself.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield 10
minutes?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the
Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment that would
authorize a single round of base closures during the year 2001. I
commend both the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Michigan for
presenting this amendment to the Senate today.
I am well aware that we all recognize this is a very sensitive issue,
because it potentially impacts the constituents of each and every one
of the Members of the Senator.
My home State of Rhode Island is no exception to this. We are the
proud home to a significant presence of the U.S. Navy, both at the
Naval War College and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport.
We have a tradition of Naval service in Rhode Island. As in every
other State, we are sensitive to the potential vulnerabilities of
another round of base closures. But I, for one, recognize the
imperative nature of doing this, for many of the reasons that were so
well outlined by the Senator from Arizona.
We have already in the past in Rhode Island--and I suspect in other
places around the country--suffered from cutbacks. In fact, before the
base closing process was established back in the early 1970s, one of
our major bases, Quonset Point Air Station, was closed and, indeed, we
lost effectively all of the surface ships that used to regularly be
stationed in Newport. The result was traumatic to my home State.
Rhode Island is the smallest State in the country. Every family in
Rhode Island either had some connection to Quonset Point Air Station or
knew someone who worked there. Whole families had to leave the State.
Many moved down to Wilmington, NC, where there was another naval
aviation center. It caused great trauma and it set our economy back
tremendously. In fact, we are still trying to reestablish and
regenerate that site.
But despite all of that--despite the real costs to individuals, the
real costs to families--we have to do this in order to maintain a
national defense that will truly be efficient and effective.
It is difficult to talk about this issue and to tell constituents
that there might be another round of base closings, but it is
absolutely necessary. We are maintaining a cold war military structure
in terms of bases. Yet, we know we need to reform and to reorganize. We
will face new threats in the century beyond with a cold war military
structure.
As the Senator from Arizona said, we organized so much of our
military to support a huge landforce that was designed to counterattack
a threat from the former Soviet Union. That has mercifully evaporated
with the demise of the Soviet Union. The new threats to our national
security are different. Yet, we still have the same cold war base
infrastructure which we must reform, and the only practical way to do
that is to organize another round of base closings.
It is a difficult decision, but it is a decision that we must make.
The numbers speak for themselves. This is almost a mathematical
equation in terms of what we must do. We are maintaining approximately
23 percent extra capacity in the Department of Defense in terms of our
bases. If you look at our force structure, the troops in the field, the
men and women who are actually the war-fighters who defend the Nation
every day, we have reduced those numbers by 36 percent since 1989. Yet,
we have only been able to reduce our infrastructure by 21 percent.
There is an imbalance. We have a smaller force structure. Yet we still
have much of the old real estate that we accumulated from World War II
all the way through the cold war.
We already embarked on limited base reductions in previous base
closing rounds. We have saved approximately $3.9 billion to date. It is
estimated that the base closing process that has already taken place
will yield $25 billion by the year 2003.
Those are the significant savings. Yet, we hear lots of folks
disputing the savings. I think everyone in America recognizes that when
you close unnecessary bases, you save money. That is what corporate
America has been doing now for the last 10 years. That is, in fact, one
of the reasons why American productivity and American corporate profits
are soaring and Wall Street is reflecting those results. It is because
American businesses have the flexibility to close unwanted facilities,
many times painfully so, to small communities.
[[Page 10748]]
But in the military establishment, we have denied our managers--the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his
colleagues--that same type of flexibility. We have done it in a way
which has retarded our ability to save billions of dollars which we
need for other priorities in the Department of Defense.
Another charge was raised in this discussion about why base closings
shouldn't be pursued at this moment. It said that there is no effective
audit of these savings. In many respects, what we have saved, if you
will, are costs that would have been incurred. They are foregone. They
won't be incurred. It is difficult to audit some things you won't spend
money on, but those savings are equally real.
We have a situation where we know we have saved money in previous
base closing rounds--billions of dollars. And we know through estimates
that we will save in this round additional money if we authorize an
additional round of base closings. This is an estimate that has been
agreed to by both the Congressional Budget Office and the General
Accounting Office. They estimated there is excess capacity, that we can
save money by another round of base closings.
There is another argument that has been raised to try to defeat the
notion of a new round of base closings: That the environmental cleanup
costs associated with closing bases eats up all the savings.
The reality, legally, is that the Department of Defense is
responsible for these cleanup costs regardless of whether they keep the
bases open or they close them. The only difference is an accounting
difference. When you close a base, there is much more of an accelerated
cleanup so the property can be turned over to civilian authority. In
terms of the dollar responsibility, the contingent liabilities out
there for cleanup of military bases remain the same, regardless of
whether we have a base closing round or we just simply let these excess
bases continue to operate. That, too, is not a reason to defeat the
notion of a base closing round today.
As the Senator from Arizona pointed out, this is the top priority of
the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Service Secretaries, the uniformed heads of our military services.
They all know that they need additional dollars for higher priority
items than some of these bases.
Last September, the Service Chiefs came to the Senate Armed Services
Committee and said they needed more resources to do the job. We were
quite forthcoming. In fact, we authorized $8.3 billion over the
President's budget request. Yet, when they say they equally need the
closing of excess bases, we ignore their plea--equally fervent, equally
important, equally necessary for the success of the Department of
Defense, yet we ignore this plea.
Some of this has been a result of claims that the last base closing
round was politicized. This proposal is that the process be conducted
in the year 2001, which is beyond the term of this administration. I
think the argument of politicization is false because whatever
confidence or lack of confidence you have in this current
administration, this proposal, this amendment, would carry it beyond
this administration into the next administration.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REED. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. That is the problem that troubles the Senator from
Virginia the most--the California and Texas experiences.
As I listened to my good friend from Arizona, he made rational
positions and I agree with him; the Senator from New Jersey made
rational positions.
However, the practical thing that will happen if the Congress of the
United States were to enact a base closure bill--this bill--the day
after the signature is affixed by the President, the work begins in the
Department of Defense down at the level of the services to work up the
list of communities which, in the judgment of the Army, the Navy, the
Air Force and certain DOD facilities is to be boarded up, and
eventually it goes to the BRAC Commission.
True, the next President would appoint that BRAC Commission. But the
staff work would have been done.
The communities all across America, as my good friend from Arizona
pointed out in repeating my statement, become suddenly on full alert
that it could be their base. They have a long tradition in this country
of embracing that base. It is not just because of economic reasons and
jobs. It is also, as the Senator well knows, because of the tradition
in the community.
Does the Senator realize I was the Secretary of the Navy who closed
the largest naval base and destroyer base in your State? Your
predecessor, Senator Pastore, brought this humble public servant, the
Secretary of the Navy, down to the caucus room of the Senate of the
Russell Building before more cameras than I have ever seen and grilled
me for hour after hour after hour, together with the Chief of Naval
Operations. That convinced me that we had to have a process called
BRAC.
I say with humility I was the coauthor of the first BRAC statute,
coauthor of the second BRAC statute. Then I lost confidence in BRAC
because of what the Senator just said--the politicization of the
process as it related to decisions in California and Texas. If we were
to pass this all over America, these communities would suddenly begin
to wonder: Will politics play as the bureaucrats in the Department of
Defense begin their assigned task to work up those lists that slowly go
to the top and eventually to the BRAC Commission?
Mr. President, that is the problem. That is a problem shared by so
many of our colleagues. That was the problem that was shared by the
majority of our committee, the Armed Services Committee, on which we
all serve with great pride. In two instances, that committee turned
down the proposal which the Senators bring before the Senate tonight.
That is the process.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REED. I yield.
Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator doesn't like the fact that it upsets the
communities but believes that we need to close bases, does the Senator
have another solution?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, the solution, regrettably, I say to my good friend,
is that we have to wait until the next President determines whether or
not in his judgment we should have a BRAC Commission and he comes
before the Congress and he requests it.
I will commit right now, no matter who wins the office of the
Presidency, including, if I may say with great respect, yourself, I
would be the first to sponsor a BRAC Commission under the McCain
administration and I will work relentlessly to get it through the
Senate.
But that would be the moment that the bureaucracy begins to work up
the list of the communities.
Mr. McCAIN. May I just say with all due respect, if I may, the
amendment calls for a base closing commission to be appointed in May of
2001. The election takes place in November of the year 2000, as I seem
to recollect; some 5 or 6 months later is when the commission is
appointed.
The logic of the Senator from Virginia, in all due respect to my
chairman, escapes me. There will be a new President of the United
States, there will be a new Secretary of Defense. Obviously, the
chairman doesn't trust or have confidence in the Secretary of Defense
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both of whom sent over
compelling statements and letters. So if it is a new President that you
want, there will be a new President.
If I get this right, what the distinguished chairman is saying is
that we will just put everything on hold for a year or two until we get
a new President, then we can start a process?
This amendment says there will be a new President, there will be a
new Secretary of Defense, there will be a new Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, as a matter of fact, and that is what this amendment
contemplates.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reply to both friends, this is a very
interesting colloquy.
[[Page 10749]]
First, I hope my good friend would amend it that the Secretary of
Defense--perhaps he could stay on and I would join at that point; I
have the highest confidence in the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator has a strange way of displaying that
confidence if you don't agree with his primary and most important
recommendation.
Mr. WARNER. But, I say to my good friend, it is not the Secretary.
The work begins literally down in the bowels of that building, in which
I was privileged to remain for 5\1/2\ years, down at the low level of
the staff beginning to work up those lists. And that political problem
that arose in California and Texas could begin to creep into those
basement and lower areas in the Pentagon, begin to influence those
decisions which would gravitate to the top.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?
Mr. REED. If I can retain my time.
Mr. McCAIN. In all due respect to my friend from Virginia, he knows
where that California and Texas thing came from. It didn't come from
the bowels of the Pentagon; it came from the White House. That is why,
as he knows, we are saying this Commission should only convene after
there is a new President of the United States.
Mr. WARNER. I agree with that. That is precisely why I object,
because that same White House could begin to communicate down with
those good, honest, hard-working GS-14 employees of the Department of
Defense. That is where it could start.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, the Senator from Virginia said
how much confidence he has in the Secretary of Defense. Is the Senator
suggesting that the Secretary of Defense is going to stand by while
some political person from somewhere reaches around him into the bowels
of the Pentagon to give a signal that some base should not be
considered?
It is because our good friend from Virginia did not want there to be
any possibility of any political involvement by anybody that we delayed
the date for the Secretary of Defense to transmit the base closure
recommendations to September 1, 2002.
The new President and the new Secretary of Defense--or the current
one, if he is continued--will have until September 1 to transmit the
base closure recommendation. We delayed it 6 months because the
Senator, in committee, said he was concerned that the preliminary work
could be done now and somehow or other, unbeknownst to an honest
Secretary of Defense--who I think our good friend would concede is an
honest one----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do.
Mr. LEVIN. This work would begin and somehow or other it would take
hold.
So we delayed the transmittal to September 1 of the year after the
new President is elected, 6 months--more than that, 8 months after the
new President is in office.
It seems to me at this point that the argument about politicization
is now being used as an excuse not to act. We have done everything we
possibly can to eliminate any possibility of that. The new President is
not required to transmit names for a base closure commission. As the
good Senator from Virginia knows, if the new President does not want a
base closing round, he or she need not have it. That is the law. All
the new President has to do is not nominate anybody.
So you have total control in the new President. You have 9 months to
submit the recommendations. At this point, the politicization argument,
it seems to me--talking about reaching down? I think the good Senator,
my good friend, is reaching back.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend from Virginia, would he agree to an
amendment which had the base closing round begin in the year 2002?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the answer is very simple: No. Because the
moment the ink is dry and this becomes law--would the Senator not agree
with me that the staff work begins on this the day it becomes law? The
decisions begin to be made. The communities all across America go on
full alert. The communities begin to hire expensive consultants to help
them in the process, to prepare their case so that community is not
struck. Am I not correct? Does any one of the three wish to dispute
that the work begins at the bureaucratic level, by honest,
conscientious individuals----
Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Members of the Senate,
the Senator from Rhode Island controls the time.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we continue this colloquy
and maybe, to make the sides even, the Senator from Maine would like to
engage us as well.
Mr. WARNER. I would welcome the Senator from Maine. That resonant
voice will reverberate through this Chamber with a reasonable approach
to this.
Mr. LEVIN. May I suggest, if the Senator will yield, that the Senator
needs the support and help of the Senator from Maine. But before that
suggestion resonates through this Chamber, I will say just one other
thing. Would the Senator accept an amendment that says no staff work
can begin until January 21 of the year 2000? If we added that language
in the bowels of the Pentagon, nobody----
Mr. WARNER. Or at any level.
Mr. McCAIN. There would be no movement.
Mr. LEVIN. I want the record to be clear, that comment came from the
prime sponsor of this legislation.
That there would not be a computer keyboard touched in the bowels or
any level of the Pentagon prior to January 21 of next year--would the
Senator accept that amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the course of the deliberation in the
Armed Services Committee I came up with a phrase. I said there was no
way to write into law the word ``trust.'' Therefore, my answer to my
good friend is: No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island controls the
time.
Mr. REED. Briefly, because I know my colleagues are eager to continue
in colloquy, but in response to the chairman, most of what I think was
the initiative, if you will, involved in the last base closing, came
after the particular bases were identified for closing by the
Commission. It was not a question where political decisions were made
to close bases. I think, rather, political decisions were made to try
to avoid and go around the work of the Commission. So the Commission
process is, I think we would all agree, as unpolitical as you can get.
The research in the bowels of the Pentagon is, I think, similarly
nonpolitical. If it is not, then we have more worries than a base
closing commission, if we have GS-14s doing political deeds for anyone
rather than looking rationally and logically at the needs of the
service and the infrastructure to support those needs.
If the administration was guilty of politicization, then shame on
them. But we are running the risk of, ourselves, politicizing this
process. We are running the risk of rejecting the logic.
The overwhelming conclusion I think any rational person could draw is
that we have to start closing bases. The base closing mechanism is the
best way to do that, and we are in a situation where, if we resist
this, if we cannot find a formulation, we are going to politicize it
worse than anything that is purported to have been done by the
administration.
I strongly support the measure offered by the Senator from Arizona
and the Senator from Michigan. We have an opportunity to align our
force structure and our base structure to give resources to the
Department of Defense, to support the really pressing needs of our
troops, to retain them, to train them, to provide them a quality of
life they deserve.
When you go out to visit troops--I know everyone here on this floor
today does that frequently--what those young troops are worried about
is: Do they have the best training, best equipment, and are their
families well taken care of? They do not worry about whether we have a
base in Oregon or a base in Texas or a base in Rhode Island. They worry
about their training, their readiness for the mission, their weapons,
and whether their families
[[Page 10750]]
are taken care of. If we listen to them, we will support this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for
the very strong and, I think, thoughtful statement. He is a much valued
member of the committee. I appreciate his efforts in this area.
I do not like to belabor my old and dear friend, the former Secretary
of the Navy and chairman of the committee. Our respect and friendship
is mutual. It has been there for many, many years.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may say, it will be there for an
eternity.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Virginia.
I do have to mention one other aspect of this issue that is
important, and then I know the Senator from Maine has been patiently
waiting.
We do have a credibility problem here. We are asking these young
people to do without. Some of them right now are in harm's way. We ask
them to spend time in the middle of the desert and the middle of Bosnia
under very difficult, sometimes nearly intolerable conditions. We have
an Air Force that is half the size of what it was at the time of Desert
Storm, and it has four times the commitments. We simply do not have a
military that we can sustain under the present conditions.
If we are not willing to make a sacrifice of the possibility of a
base closure in our home State, how in the world can we ask these young
people to risk their lives? This is an issue of credibility. If we are
going to make the kind of changes necessary to restructure the
military, there are going to have to be some very tough decisions made.
Base closing is just one of them. But if we cannot even make a decision
to have a base closing commission, on the recommendation of every
expert inside and outside the defense establishment of the United
States of America, then I do not think we have any credibility in other
decisions that the committee or the Senate will make.
I realize that bases are at risk. I realize there can be economic
dislocation. I recommend and I recognize all those aspects of a base
closing commission. But for us to tell these young men and women, whom
we are asking to sacrifice and take risks, that we will not take the
political risk of approving the base of the base closing commission
that would convene under the tenure of the next President of the United
States under the most fair and objective process that we know how to
shape, then, Mr. President, we deserve neither our credibility with
them nor their trust.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). The Senator from
Maine is recognized.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that
has been offered by Senator McCain and Senator Levin concerning the
establishment of another Base Closing Commission process in the year
2001.
It is not a matter of when it is established. It is not a matter by
whom it is appointed. I think the question is whether or not the
Department of Defense and this administration has answered the
questions that have been raised time and time again in the committee
and on the floor of this Senate with respect to a number of issues that
justify having another base closing round. Having been involved in the
four previous rounds, I can tell you it raises a number of issues with
respect to the efficiency and the effectiveness of base closings.
We are seeing already with our commitment in Kosovo the Defense
Department cannot continue to decide which installations to downsize or
close by making arbitrary comparisons to personnel reductions. Just
since the hostilities began in March, we have seen the Pentagon divert
a carrier battle group to the Adriatic leaving the western Pacific
without a carrier for the first time in decades.
It has contributed more than 400 aircraft to the NATO campaign
against Yugoslavia.
It has nearly depleted the Nation's air-launched precision missile
stocks, exhausted our tanker fleet, and called up 33,000 reservists.
Now we have a situation where we are conducting a campaign regarding
Kosovo and it has been revealed that the air and sea bridges required
to ``swing'' forces into one major theater war to support a second
conflict makes the risk of prevailing in the latter engagement too high
because of the operational strains on personnel, weapons, and
maintenance schedules. Yet, the Pentagon persists with the position
that we must close more bases. But who is really making these
assumptions about the volatile and complex nature of warfare as we
approach the 21st century?
The standard the administration is putting forth is personnel
reductions; that closing 36 percent of our bases is absolutely
essential, if 36 percent of all our people have left the military since
the peak of the cold war. But the standard must remain if we are to be
truly honest about what kinds of assumptions and determinations we must
make. We should be making a decision of adapting our infrastructure to
the mix of security threats that we anticipate into the 21st century. I
do not think that we have to project that far out to recognize what we
can expect for the types of conflicts that we will be facing in the
future.
As it did last year and in 1997, the administration rests its
argument for more base closings primarily on the claim that facility
cuts have lagged behind personnel reductions by more than 15 percent. I
do not happen to think that a simple percentage can answer the types of
questions that we need to determine the future of our military bases.
What systems, what airfields, and what ports do we need to sustain in
light of our engagement in the Balkans and considering the fact that
the Pentagon planners thought that the Nation's two simultaneous
conflicts would likely occur in Asia and the Persian Gulf?
What depots can provide competition for the private sector?
What shipyards can provide the Navy with a diversified industrial
base to sustain the next generation of submarines that will maneuver in
our waters?
What airbases must stay active to support long-range power projection
capabilities we now have with the diminished forward presence overseas?
What configuration of domestic bases does the country require to
project a smaller force over long distances that we now lack because we
have a diminished presence in Asia and Europe?
This fact means at a minimum the country has to stabilize a number of
domestic facilities to prepare forces once deployed abroad for long-
range projections from this country. How has DOD calculated the
vulnerability of political uncertainties of gaining access to our
Middle Eastern military assets in the event of another regional crisis?
These are the unanswered questions. These are the questions that need
answers, not some isolated percentages that should determine the size
and the shape of our basing network. These are the answers that we do
not have.
We have discrepancies in the numbers that have been provided to us by
the Department of Defense. We do not have the assessments. We do not
have the matching infrastructure to the security threat. We have not
made a determination with respect to the assets, and even the national
defense plan indicated in its own report that it was necessary to make
that determination based on a report. In fact, the panel said it
strongly urges Congress and the Department to look at these issues.
They talked about if there is going to be a next round, it might be
preceded by an independent, comprehensive inventory of all facilities
and installations located in the United States. This review would
provide the basis for a long-term installation master plan that aligns
infrastructure assets with future military requirements and provides a
framework for investment and reuse strategies.
We raised this issue time and time again in the committee and in the
Senate over the last 2 years to those individuals who are propounding
this amendment and raising the fact that
[[Page 10751]]
we should have another base closing round. Yet, how can we make those
decisions and on what basis are we making those decisions? Are they
going to be arbitrary determinations? Are they going to be politicized?
I know people argue: Oh, this is a depoliticized process in the Base
Closing Commission procedure. I argue to the contrary. Having been
through this procedure on four different occasions since 1988, I can
tell you we just moved politics from one venue to another.
I think we have to very carefully consider whether or not we want to
initiate another base closing round for the future, absent the kinds of
decisions and determinations that need to be made in order to make a
reasonable decision.
Even in the Department's own report in April of 1998, it exposed the
apparent base closure savings as a frustrating mystery rather than a
confirmed fact. To its credit, the Department actually admitted in its
own study that there was no audit trail for tracking the end use of
each dollar saved through the BRAC process. They admitted in their own
report that they did not have a procedure for determining the actual
savings that they projected from the base closing rounds and how they
were used, so that we could not correlate the savings and whether or
not they were used for any purpose or, in fact, were there any savings.
So now the Department of Defense has said: Yes, there are savings
from the four previous base closing rounds; and, yes, we are using them
for readiness and modernization; and that is what we will do in the
future. But they never established a process that we could document
those savings that ostensibly occurred in the four previous rounds, and
that they were invested in modernization and in the readiness accounts.
The fact is, it never happened.
The General Accounting Office, in fact, recommended, in their 1997
report, and, in fact, documented what the DOD report said, that there
is no process by which to track the savings which the Department of
Defense claims occurred as a result of the base closings over the last
10 years. So we have no way of knowing if, in fact, we have realized
real savings.
The Department claims that over the last four rounds there were
savings of $21 billion, $22 billion. Yet, in their 1999 report, they
admitted that the cost of closing bases was $22.5 billion. Their
savings, in their 1999 report, from the four previous rounds is $21
billion. So they have $1.5 billion more than the estimated savings
through 2015. So that is what we are talking about here. The Department
of Defense is spending more to close these bases than they are actually
saving. They have had more costs as a result of environmental
remediation. In fact, they project to spend $3 billion more.
They said they would realize $3 billion from the first base closing
round, to give you an example, from the sale of the property to the
private sector, when in fact they only realized $65 million. That gives
you an idea of the discrepancy that has occurred from their projected
savings to the actual revenue that was realized through their sale
process.
So that is the problem we have. We have been given promises by the
Department of Defense that we will have the savings, and yet these
savings have not really materialized. So we do not have a picture of
what we need for the future in terms of domestic bases because we have
closed so many abroad as well as at home.
Because we do not have the presence in other countries, it is all the
more important that we have the necessary domestic bases to do the
kinds of things we have to do, as we have seen in Kosovo.
It is interesting that back in 1991, when we went through a base
closing round, we had Loring Air Force Base up in northern Maine. It
was a B-52 base. We were told at the time B-52s were going to go out.
They were old. They were aging. They were going to be rapidly removed
from the defense program.
What are we seeing? B-52s are being used in Kosovo. No, we do not
have the base in northern Maine that is closest to Europe, to the
Middle East, to the former Soviet Union, to Africa. We are having to
launch those B-52s from other bases that are not as close to Europe. So
that is the problem we are seeing, because of the miscalculations and
the underestimation of what we might need for the future. It has not
been the kind of documentation that I happen to think is necessary.
In fact, it was interesting to hear--when talking about B-52s--what a
former Air Force Secretary said a few weeks ago, that the current
crises are proving the enormous value of the Nation's long-range bomber
force of B-52s. That is what it is all about.
So what we were told in 1991: No; they are going to be out of
commission because they are simply too old, we find is not the case.
So I think we have to be very circumspect about how we want to
proceed. That is why I think we have to be reticent about initiating
any base closing process for the future until we get the kinds of
answers that are necessary to justify proceeding with any additional
base closing rounds.
We have had the miscalculations of the costs in the Balkans. In fact,
that is why there is such great pressure within the Pentagon to try to
find additional savings, because we have spent so much money in Bosnia.
When we were only supposed to spend $2 billion, we are now beyond $10
billion. We will probably spend $10 billion in Kosovo by the end of
this fiscal year. That has placed granted, inordinate pressures on the
defense budget.
But as QDR said, and even the Pentagon has admitted, there are many
ways, in which to achieve their savings. They could follow up on the
management reforms that have been proposed by the Department of Defense
through technology upgrades. They could obviously require the services
to determine their budget priorities. We can obviously look even at the
deployment in Bosnia, which has far exceeded the original estimates, as
I said earlier.
So those are the kinds of challenges we face in the future. I think
we have to be very, very cautious about suggesting that somehow we
should close more bases--subject to another arbitrary process, subject
to more arbitrary percentages--without the kind of analysis that I
think is necessary to make those kinds of decisions.
We have to be very selective. We have to make decisions for the
future in terms of what interests are at stake, what we can anticipate
for the future, because it seems that we are going to have more
contingency operations like the ones we are confronting now in the
Balkans. Therefore, we will have to look at what we have currently
within the continental United States. It is important to be able to
launch these missions, simply because we cannot depend on a presence in
foreign countries.
So I hope Members of the Senate will vote against the amendment which
has been offered by the Senator from Arizona about initiating another
base closing round, because we have raised these questions before. We
have asked the Department: Please document what bases you are talking
about. What bases do you need? What bases don't you need? Why don't you
need them? How does that comport with the anticipated security threats
for the future?
Of course, finally, the Department claims that they have made
enormous savings from the previous base closing rounds, but now we find
that the cost of closing those bases--of which more than 152 were
either realigned or closed--was greater than the savings that have been
realized to date and into the future.
So I think we have an obligation and, indeed, a responsibility to
evaluate what has happened. I think it is also interesting that the
Department of Defense has not responded to the General Accounting
Office or to the National Defense Plan in terms of coming up with an
analysis of what is actually necessary for our domestic military
infrastructure, and then, secondly, setting up a mechanism by which we
can evaluate whether or not savings have, indeed, been realized as a
result of the four previous base closing rounds, because on the basis
of what we have currently from the Pentagon, they cannot suggest in any
way that they have
[[Page 10752]]
made any savings. If anything, it has cost them more money.
Then when you look at what we are facing in Kosovo, what we can
project in the future for additional asymmetric threats, we may want to
be very careful about closing down any more bases in this country
without knowing whether or not they are going to be necessary for the
future, because once you lose that infrastructure, it is very difficult
to recoup.
So I hope the Senate will reject this amendment.
I yield the floor.
position on landrieu-specter amendment no. 384
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, had I been present for the vote on the
Landrieu-Specter amendment No. 384 to the FY 2000 Defense
Authorization, S. 1059, bill regarding the need for vigorous
prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the former
Yugoslavia, I would have voted in favor of the amendment. My vote would
not have changed the outcome of the vote on the amendment which passed
by a vote of 90-0.
I was unable to reach the Capitol in time for the vote because of air
travel delays due to weather conditions. I am disappointed that, though
I and other Members notified the Senate leadership about our travel
difficulties hours before the vote began, they were unwilling to
reschedule the time of the vote.
____________________
AVAILABILITY OF CLASSIFIED ANNEX
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a letter to the Honorable Trent Lott dated May 17, 1999,
signed by myself and Senator Kerrey.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May 17, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The Select Committee on Intelligence has
reported a bill (S. 1009) authorizing appropriations for U.S.
intelligence activities for fiscal year 2000. The Committee
cannot disclose the details of its budgetary recommendations
in its public report (Senate Report 106-48), because our
intelligence activities are classified. The Committee has
prepared, however, a classified annex to the report which
describes the full scope and intent of the Committee's
actions.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 8(c)(2) of
Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress, the classified
annex is available to any member of the Senate and can be
reviewed in room SH-211. If you wish to do so, please have
your staff contact the Committee's Director of Security, Mr.
James Wolfe, at 224-1751 to arrange a time for such review.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman.
J. Robert Kerrey,
Vice Chairman.
____________________
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday,
May 24, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,597,942,875,397.10 (Five
trillion, five hundred ninety-seven billion, nine hundred forty-two
million, eight hundred seventy-five thousand, three hundred ninety-
seven dollars and ten cents).
Five years ago, May 24, 1994, the federal debt stood at
$4,591,881,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred ninety-one billion,
eight hundred eighty-one million).
Ten years ago, May 24, 1989, the federal debt stood at
$2,781,133,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-one billion, one
hundred thirty-three million).
Fifteen years ago, May 24, 1984, the federal debt stood at
$1,489,236,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-nine billion, two
hundred thirty-six million).
Twenty-five years ago, May 24, 1974, the federal debt stood at
$471,902,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, nine hundred two
million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--
$5,126,040,875,397.10 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty-six billion,
forty million, eight hundred seventy-five thousand, three hundred
ninety-seven dollars and ten cents) during the past 25 years.
____________________
HONORING ROBERT SUTTER
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to
salute a distinguished servant of the legislative branch of the U.S.
Congress in the field of foreign affairs. In June 1999, Dr. Robert
Sutter will leave the Congressional Research Service after 22 highly
productive years as a source of expertise on China and the Asia-Pacific
region. Dr. Sutter is resigning from his current position as a Senior
Specialist in Asia and International Politics in the Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division of CRS to become the National Intelligence
Officer for East Asia, a critical intelligence community assignment.
Since 1977, when he first came to work at CRS as a China specialist,
Dr. Sutter has provided Members of Congress and their staffs with
authoritative, in-depth analysis and policy options covering a broad
range of foreign policy issues involving China, East Asia, and the
Pacific. It should be a matter of pride to this body to know that Dr.
Sutter is well known both here and in the Asia-Pacific region as one of
the most authoritative and productive American Asia hands.
In his government career to date of over 30 years, Dr. Sutter has
held a variety of analytical and supervisory positions including
service with the Foreign Broadcast Information Service and temporary
details with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Central
Intelligence Agency, and the Department of State. It is in service to
Congress, however, specifically with the Congressional Research
Service, that Dr. Sutter has spent most of his distinguished career. I
want to make a few comments that illustrate the strengths and great
contributions of both the institution and the man himself.
The first point to make concerns one of the great institutional
strengths that CRS offers to the congressional clients it serves, and
which Dr. Sutter's tenure and contributions here epitomize perfectly:
institutional memory. Dr. Sutter's first published report at CRS was
entitled U.S.-PRC Normalization Arguments and Alternatives. Published
first as a CRS Report for general congressional use, on August 3, 1977,
it soon became a Committee Print of the House International Relations
Committee's Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs. The report and
subsequent Committee Print addressed a number of highly controversial
issues arising out of President Carter's decision to normalize
relations with China. Congressional concern about the consequences of
derecognition of the Republic of China, and dissatisfaction with the
terms of the agreement negotiated with the People's Republic of China,
directly led to the landmark Taiwan Relations Act, which still governs
our policy decisions today, and which continues in 1999 to be a factor
in debates in this very chamber.
Besides Bob Sutter, only 48 Members of Congress serving today, in the
106th Congress, were here in 1977 and 1978 to witness these initial
steps of U.S.-China relations. In the more than 20 years since then,
both U.S.-China relations and the U.S. Congress itself have undergone
tremendous change, both for the better and for worse. Bob Sutter has
been an active participant in congressional deliberations on China
policy, and in the U.S. national debate over these issues, from
normalization of relations, to the Tiananmen Square crackdown, to the
recent tragic bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Dr. Sutter's
two decades of service spanned the tenures for four U.S. presidents and
some ten Congresses. Despite several shifts of party control in the
Senate, and one in the House, Dr. Sutter continued to deliver timely,
accurate, objective, and non-partisan analysis. The institutional
memory represented by CRS analysts, which Dr. Sutter so perfectly
exemplifies, is of incalculable value to the work of the Congress.
[[Page 10753]]
The second point I want to make concerns Dr. Sutter himself. He has,
for one thing, consistently demonstrated an astonishing capacity for
work. In 1974 Dr. Sutter received his Ph.D. in History and East Asian
Languages from Harvard University, writing his Ph.D. thesis while
maintaining a full-time job. Routinely, he has been one of--perhaps the
most in terms of sheer output of written work--productive analysts in
CRS. In the last 5 years alone, Dr. Sutter has been called on for
advice from Members of Congress and their staffs nearly 6,000 times--an
average of 1,140 times each year. He has regularly maintained six or
more ongoing, continually updated products, and his output of CRS
written reports for Congress totals at least 90 since late 1987 alone.
As is evident in these products, he excels at providing accurate,
succinct, and well-organized analysis of congressional policy choices
and their likely consequences. His work always reflects up to date
knowledge of issues, usually based on personal research in East Asia
and/or close contact with the U.S. private and official community of
Asian analysts and scholars.
Even more to the point, Dr. Sutter has always understood the powers
and special needs of Congress, including its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, and our obligation to represent the interests of our
constituents. In his research and writing, Dr. Sutter never forgets the
unique role of Congress and the importance of reflecting the full range
of competing viewpoints.
Reflecting his commitment to service and cheerful willingness to
assume responsibility, Dr. Sutter has fulfilled a number of roles in
the CRS. He has served as Chief of the Foreign Affairs Division in CRS,
as well as Chief of the Government Division in CRS, in both cases
maintaining a full research work load for Congress in the midst of
significant management duties. He has frequently conceived,
coordinated, and moderated Asia policy seminars and workshops for
Members of Congress and their staffs. He routinely serves on special
advisory groups in CRS and the Library of Congress. As a well-known and
respected analyst, he has been a sought-after speaker at dozens of
foreign policy seminars, panels, and conferences in Washington and
around the world.
In recent years, he has maintained this outstanding record of
productivity for the Congress while managing in his spare time to teach
several college courses per year at Washington area universities. He
has also found time to write more than a dozen books on foreign policy
issues during his tenure at CRS.
Finally, Dr. Sutter's simple decency, modesty, engaging manner, and
professionalism set a high standard for others and make it a great
pleasure to work with him. He cheerfully volunteers for onerous tasks.
He is pleasant and good-humored. Moreover, in the midst of the
pressured environment of Washington and Capitol Hill, he has always
found time to serve as a mentor, counselor, and friend to others,
whether they be his own students, younger colleagues, or new
congressional staff. And, a fact known only to close friends, he has a
record of community service, including Church work and teaching of
English to native Spanish speakers, that is nearly as impressive as his
professional contribution.
Dr. Sutter will be greatly missed, but the loss of his service to the
Congress will be partly compensated for by bringing to the Executive
branch his knowledge of the Congress and its special role in the making
and oversight of U.S. foreign policy. When he comes back to Capitol
Hill for one-on-one meetings, briefings, and testimony, he will bring
with him a high degree of credibility and a special awareness of
congressional needs for information and analysis.
____________________
VOTE ON AMENDMENT 384
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to indicate to the Senate why
I was unavoidably absent, as was recorded in yesterday's Record, at the
time of the vote on amendment 384 to S. 1059. I was in Connecticut
yesterday. Because of serious thunderstorm and wind conditions my
flight from Connecticut to Washington was delayed for several hours,
causing me to miss the vote on the amendment.
As yesterday's Record indicates, had I been able to return to vote, I
would have voted for the amendment, which passed 90 to 0.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:
EC-3254. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under Clean Air Act Section 112(r); Amendments to
the Worst-Case Release Scenario Analysis for Flammable
Substances (FRL# 6348-2)'', received May 18, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3255. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Primary Lead Smelting (FRL# 6345-8)'', received May 18,
1999; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3256. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (FRL# 6347-2)'',
received May 18, 1999; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-3257. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry (FRL# 6345-3)'',
received May 18, 1999; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-3258. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Oil and Natural Gas Production and National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Natural Gas
Transmission and Storage (FRL# 6346-8)'', received May 18,
1999; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3259. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Steel Pickling-HCI Process Facilities and Hydrochloric
Acid Regeneration Plants (FRL# 6344-5)'', received May 18,
1999; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3260. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Promulgation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production (FRL# 6345-4)'', received May 18, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3261. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -
800 Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-38-AD; Amendment 39-
11107; AD 99-08-03'' (RIN2120-AA64), received April 6, 1999;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3262. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series
Airplanes; Docket No. 97-NM-326-AD; Amendment 39-11105; AD
99-08-01'' (RIN2120-AA64), received April 9, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3263. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech
Models
[[Page 10754]]
1900, 1900C, and 1900D Airplanes; Docket No. 96-CE-60-AD''
(RIN2120-AA64), received April 19, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3264. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Puritan-Bennett Aero Systems
Company C351-2000 Series Passenger Oxygen Masks and Portable
Oxygen Masks; Docket No. 98-CE-29-AD'' (RIN2120-AA64),
received April 19, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-3265. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200,
and -300 Series Airplanes; Docket No. 97-NM-04-AD; Amendment
39-11109; AD 99-08-04'' (RIN2120-AA64), received April 9,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3266. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Request for Comments; Eurocopter
France Model SA. 3160, SA. 316B, SA. 31C, and SA 319B
Helicopters; Docket No. 98-SW-58-AD'' (RIN2120-AA64),
received April 9, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-3267. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Request for Comments; Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Model 222, 222B, and 222U
Helicopters; Docket No. 98-SW-49-AD'' (RIN2120-AA64),
received May 3, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-3268. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and
MD-11 Series Airplanes, and KC-10 (Military) Series
Airplanes; Docket No. 98-NM-55-AD; Amendment 39-11072; AD 99-
06-08'' (RIN2120-AA64), received April 9, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3269. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and
C-9 [Military) Series Airplanes; Docket No. 98-NM-110-AD;
Amendment 39-11110; AD 99-08-05'' (RIN2120-AA64), received
April 9, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3270. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10
Series Airplanes and KC-10 (Military) Airplanes; Docket No.
98-NM-197-AD; Amendment 39-11131; AD 99-08-22'' (RIN2120-
AA64), received April 19, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-3271. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes; Docket No. 99-NM-42-AD; Amendment 39-11133;
AD 99-09-01'' (RIN2120-AA64), received May 3, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3272. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
99-ANE-45-AD; Amendment 39-11123; AD 99-08-17 Directives;
General Electric Company GE90 Series Turbofan Engines'',
received April 15, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-3273. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
98-ANE-41-AD; Amendment 39-11124; AD 99-08-18 General
Electric Company CF6-6, CF6-45, and CF6-50 Series Turbofan
Engines'', received April 15, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3274. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
98-ANE-49-AD; Amendment 39-11119; AD 99-08-13 General
Electric Company CF6-80A, CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 Series
Turbofan Engines'', received April 15, 1999; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3275. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
98-ANE-39-AD; Amendment 39-11123; AD 99-08-17 General
Electric Company GE90 Series Turbofan Engines'', received
April 15, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3276. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
98-ANE-66-AD; Amendment 39-11121; AD 99-08-15 Pratt and
Whitney PW4000 Series Turbofan Engines'', received April 15,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3277. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
98-ANE-47-AD; Amendment 39-11118; AD 99-08-12 Pratt and
Whitney JT9D Series Turbofan Engines'', received April 15,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3278. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
99-ANE-61-AD; Amendment 39-11120; AD 99-08-14 Pratt and
Whitney PW2000 Series Turbofan Engines'', received April 15,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3279. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
98-ANE-38-AD; Amendment 39-11122; AD 99-08-16 CFM
International (CFMI) CFM56-2, -2A, -2B, -3, -3B, and -3C
Series Turbofan Engines'', received April 15, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3280. A communication from the Program Support
Specialist, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Docket No.
99-ANE-08-AD; Amendment 39-11103; AD 99-07-19 Allied Signal
Inc. TFE731-40R-200G Turbofan Engines'', received April 9,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3281. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to shrimp harvested with
technology; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3282. A communication from the Director, Office of
Congressional Affairs, Office of Enforcement, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Federal Register Publication of
Change to NRC Enforcement Policy by Adding Examples of
Violations Involving the Compromise of an Application, Test,
or Examination Required by 10 CFR Part 55'', received May 20,
1999; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3283. A communication from the Administrator, General
Services Administration, transmitting, a report relative to
alterations to 1724 F Street, NW, Washington, DC; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3284. A communication from the Director, Office of
Congressional Affairs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Generic Letter 98-01,
Supplement 1, `Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at
Nuclear Power Plants' '', received May 20, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3285. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
New Mexico and County of Bernalillos, New Mexico; State
Boards (FRL # 6350-1)'', received May 24, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3286. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri (FRL # 6350-3)'', received May 24, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3287. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
[[Page 10755]]
of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Kansas (FRL # 6350-4)'',
received May 24, 1999; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-3288. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin (FRL # 6336-8)'', received May 24, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3289. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Kentucky; Revised Format for Materials Being
Incorporated by Reference (FRL # 6343-3)'', received May 24,
1999; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3290. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Finding of Failure to Submit Required State Implementation
Plans for Ozone; Texas; Dallas/Fort Worth Ozone Nonattainment
Area (FRL # 6349-3)'', received May 24, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-134. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Arizona relative to Medicare reimbursement
rates; to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Concurrent Memorial 1001
Whereas, access to affordable health care services has been
greatly reduced for Medicare health maintenance organization
recipients in thirty states due to cutbacks in Medicare
reimbursement by the federal government; and
Whereas, because of recent changes by the federal
government, the Medicare reimbursement rates in rural areas
are lower than those in urban areas. This results in HMOs
reimbursing physicians at the lower rates, which in turn
causes the physician networks to disintegrate and many HMOs
to stop offering service in those areas; and
Whereas, although health insurance will remain available to
seniors in rural areas through traditional Medicare coverage,
the cutbacks will significantly restrict their options for
health care coverage, the number of services covered and the
affordability of those services in general; and
Whereas, two major HMOs have withdrawn service altogether
in six rural Arizona counties, leaving nearly ten thousand
elderly individuals with only one or two HMOs from which to
choose; and
Whereas, individuals who previously were covered under HMOs
received greater benefits not covered by Medicare, including
additional services and lower copayments that offered seniors
thorough and comprehensive services at more affordable rates.
Now that many will be left with the more expensive Medicare
system as their primary health insurance option, low-income
and disabled seniors may be forced to pay more out-of-pocket
costs for their health care services or may forego receiving
these services because they are unable to afford the higher
payments; and
Whereas, the financial and health problems that many rural
seniors around the country are likely to face as a result of
the Medicare reimbursement cuts are directly attributable to
the Medicare reimbursement rates differential between rural
and urban areas.
Wherefore your memorialist, the Senate of the State of
Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring, prays:
1. That the Congress of the United States take steps to
address the problem of the Medicare reimbursement rates
differential between urban and rural areas and attempt to
establish a reimbursement system that will result in more
equitable health care coverage for seniors in rural areas of
the country.
2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona
transmit a copy of this Memorial to the President of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives and to each Member of Congress from the
State of Arizona.
____
POM-135. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Arizona relative to the 2000 census; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
House Concurrent Memorial 2003
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States requires an
enumeration of the population every ten years and entrusts
the Congress with overseeing all aspects of each decennial
census, and
Whereas, the sole constitutional purpose of the decennial
census is to apportion the seats in Congress among the
several states; and
Whereas, an accurate and legal decennial census is
necessary to properly apportion the United States House seats
among the fifty states and to create legislative districts
within the states; and
Whereas, an accurate and legal decennial census is
necessary to enable states to comply with the constitutional
mandate of drawing state legislative districts within the
states; and
Whereas, to ensure an accurate count and to minimize the
potential for political manipulation, article I, section 2 of
the United States Constitution mandates an ``actual
enumeration'' of the population, which requires a physical
head count of the population and prohibits statistical
guessing or estimates of the population; and
Whereas, consistent with this constitutional mandate, title
13, section 195 of the United States Code expressly prohibits
the use of statistical sampling to enumerate the United
States population for the purpose of reapportioning the
United States House; and
Whereas, legislative redistricting that is conducted by the
states is a critical subfunction of the constitutional
requirement to apportion representatives among the states;
and
Whereas, in Department of Commerce, et al. v. United States
Representatives, et al., No. 98-404, and in Clinton,
President of the United States, et al. v. Glavin, et al., No.
98-564, the United States Supreme Court ruled on January 25,
1999 that the Census Act prohibits the Census Bureau's
proposed uses of statistical sampling in calculating the
population for purposes of apportionment; and
Whereas, in reaching its findings, the United States
Supreme Court found that the use of statistical procedures to
adjust census numbers would create a dilution of voting
rights for citizens in legislative redistricting, thus
violating the legal guarantees of ``one person, one vote'';
and
Whereas, consistent with this ruling and the constitutional
and legal relationship between legislative redistricting by
the states and the apportionment of the United States House,
the use of adjusted census data woud raise serious questions
of vote dilution and would violate ``one person, one vote'';
legal protections, and would expose the State of Arizona to
protracted litigation over legislative redistricting plans at
great cost to the taxpayers of this state and would likely
result in a court ruling that invalidates any legislative
redistricting plan that uses census numbers that have been
determined in whole or in part by the use of random sampling
techniques or other statistical methodologies that add or
subtract persons to or from the census counts based solely on
statistical inference; and
Whereas, consistent with these principles, no person
enumerated in the census should ever be deleted from the
census enumeration; and
Whereas, consistent with this ruling, every reasonable and
practicable effort should be made to obtain the fullest and
most accurate possible count of the population, including
appropriate funding for state and local census outreach and
education programs as well as provisions for post-census
local review; and
Whereas, the members of the Forty-fourth Legislative oppose
census numbers for state legislative redistricting that have
been determined in whole or in part by the use of random
sampling techniques of other statistical methodologies that
and or subtract persons to the census counts based solely on
statistical inference.
Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of
the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, prays:
1. That the United States Bureau of the Census conduct the
2000 census consistent with the United States Supreme Court's
ruling and establish constitutional and legal mandates, which
require a physical head count of the population and bar the
use of statistical sampling to create or in any way adjust
the count.
2. That Public Law 94-171 data not be used for state
legislative redistricting if it is based on census numbers
that have been determined in whole or in part by the use of
statistical inferences derived by means of random sampling
techniques or other statistical methodologies that add or
subtract persons to or from the census counts.
3. That it receive Public Law 94-171 data for legislative
redistricting that is identifical to the census tabulation
data used to apportion the seats in the United States House
consistent with the United States Supreme Court ruling and
constitutional mandates that require a physical head count of
the population and bar the use of statistical sampling to
create or in any way adjust the count.
4. That the Congress of the United States, as the branch of
government assigned with the responsibility of overseeing the
decennial census, take any steps necessary to ensure that the
2000 census is conducted fairly and legally.
5. That the Secretary of the State of Arizona transmit a
copy of this Memorial to the Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives, the President of the United States
Senate, the Director of the United
[[Page 10756]]
States Bureau of the Census and each Member of Congress from
the State of Arizona.
____
POM-136. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Arizona relative to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
House Joint Resolution 2001
Whereas, the endangered species act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205;
87 Stat. 884; 16 United States Code sections 1531 et seq.),
as amended, was enacted for the purpose of the conservation
and recovery of endangered and threatened species by
protecting and conserving habitat and related ecosystems; and
Whereas, in pursuing that policy, the endangered species
act provides for no consideration or accommodation of human
activities, requirements or interests; and
Whereas, the United States fish and wildlife service of the
department of the interior has shown little regard or
willingness to make administrative adjustments to accommodate
human activities, requirements or interests in administering
and enforcing the endangered species act; and
Whereas, much of the enforcement pursuant to the endangered
species act is based on dubious scientific research and
outcome-oriented analysis; and
Whereas, the Arizona game and fish department is charged
with managing the fish and wildlife resources of this state
in the best interests of the present and future generations
of Arizonans; and
Whereas, the Arizona game and fish department has
recommended against the listing of several species of animals
as threatened or endangered based on sound biological
information, only to have their recommendation ignored by the
United States fish and wildlife service and the secretary of
the interior; and
Whereas, the endangered species act allows the courts no
discretion in imposing the requirements of the act over all
human activity that may remotely affect the species; and
Whereas, the result of the implementation and enforcement
of the endangered species act is to threaten and endanger the
economy and way of life throughout the west; and
Whereas, the industries that depend on harvesting,
extracting or otherwise using natural resources are
particularly endangered; and
Whereas, harvesting trees for timber and pulp wood is
threatened throughout the western states and has been all but
eliminated in Arizona, except on Indian reservations, thereby
eliminating much needed rural employment and causing a
dangerous buildup of wildfire fuel; and
Whereas, livestock ranching is endangered by massive
reductions in federal grazing allotments leaving ranches and
ranch families near bankruptcy with no option but that of
selling their private land for development thereby losing the
traditional responsible stewardship for the land and other
resources; and
Whereas, the mining industry is endangered to the brink of
extinction and the loss of quality employment for thousands
of mine workers and the collapse of an important component of
the economy of the state of Arizona and other western states;
and
Whereas, certain single issue special interest groups are
able to abuse the endangered species act to achieve their
narrow personal agenda by litigating against productive
economic activities, as well as hunting, fishing and other
recreational activities, all to the detriment of our
heritage, our culture and our society; therefore be it
Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
1. That the policy of the State of Arizona, its governor
and the legislature is to preserve and protect our way of
life, our heritage and our culture, including the economic
base of the rural areas of this state.
2. That the endangered species act must be modified to: (a)
Recognize, protect and conserve human interests at the same
time and on the same priority level as environmental
interests. (b) Provide for a more flexible and accommodating
administration and enforcement system, based on sound
scientific analysis and research, so that the United States
fish and wildlife service and other federal agencies work
with, rather than impose on, the people of this state. (c)
Allow the courts flexibility to issue rulings that protect
human interests as well as environmental interests.
3. That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this
Resolution to the President of the United States, the
Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior,
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives and to each member of
the Arizona Congressional delegation.
____
POM-137. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of West Virginia relative to the Appalachian
Development Highway System; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 14
Whereas, The construction of the Coalfields Expressway in
Southern West Virginia is due to begin in 1999; and
Whereas, The Coalfields Expressway needs approximately 1.5
billion dollars for completion; and
Whereas, Motorists in West Virginia pay into the Highway
Trust Fund at the rate of 18.4 cents tax for each gallon of
gasoline purchased and 24.4 cents tax on each gallon of
diesel fuel purchased; and
Whereas, The Appalachian Development Highway system was
conceived by the United States Congress with the intention of
aiding the economy of the entire Appalachian Region and is
now funded directly though the Highway Trust Fund; and
Whereas, A recent study on the Appalachian Development
Highway System has concluded that upon completion, this
system would provide 42,000 new jobs, 84,000 new residents,
2.9 billion dollars in new wages and 6.9 billion dollars in
value-added business in the region served by the system; and
Whereas, The Coalfields Expressway, when completed, would
traverse the counties of Raleigh, Wyoming and McDowell, and
would greatly benefit these counties in the form of increased
employment opportunities and economic growth; and
Whereas, Two of these three counties, Wyoming and McDowell,
consistently place near the top of state and national
unemployment lists; and
Whereas, The Coalfields Expressway is not a part of the
Appalachian Development Highway System, instead receiving
funding through special appropriations from the United States
Congress at irregular intervals; and
Whereas, The funding received by the Coalfields Expressway
has thus far consisted of a single appropriation of 50
million dollars in 1991 and a single appropriation of 22.7
million dollars in 1998; and
Whereas, Incorporation of the Coalfields Expressway into
the Appalachian Development Highway System would allow for
additional funding to complete the Coalfields Expressway from
the Highway Trust Fund; therefore, be it
Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the members of the West Virginia delegation to the
United States Congress are hereby requested to make all
possible efforts to support and assist the incorporation of
the Coalfields Expressway into the Appalachian Development
Highway System; and, be it
Further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates
is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to
all members of the West Virignia delegation to the United
States Congress, to the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives, to the Clerk of the United States Senate and
to the Executive Director of the Coalfields Expressway.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Appropriations:
Special Report entitled ``Revised Allocation to Subcommittees
of Budget Totals for Fiscal Year 2000'' (Rept. No. 106-52).
By Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Appropriations,
without amendment:
S. 1122: A original bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2000, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 106-53).
By Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Appropriations, with
amendments and an amendment to the title:
H.R. 1664: A bill making emergency supplemental
appropriations for military operations, refugee relief, and
humanitarian assistance relating to the conflict in Kosovo,
and for military operations in Southwest Asia for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE
The following executive reports of a committee were submitted:
By Mr. WARNER, for the Committee on Armed Services:
Ikram U. Khan, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Board of
Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences for a term expiring May 1, 1999.
Ikram U. Khan, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Board of
Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences for a term expiring May 1, 2005. (Reappointment)
(The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that
they be confirmed, subject to the nominees' commitment to respond to
requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of
the Senate.)
in the air force
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Paul V. Hester
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the
[[Page 10757]]
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Roger A. Brady
in the army
The following named officer for appointment as the Vice
Chief of Staff, United States Army, and appointment to the
grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and
3034:
To be general
Lt. Gen. John M. Keane
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Robert A. Harding
in the marine corps
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Robert R. Blackman, Jr.
Brig. Gen. William G. Bowdon, III
Brig. Gen. James T. Conway
Brig. Gen. Arnold Fields
Brig. Gen. Jan C. Huly
Brig. Gen. Jerry D. Humble
Brig. Gen. Paul M. Lee, Jr.
Brig. Gen. Harold Mashburn, Jr.
Brig. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold
Brig. Gen. Clifford L. Stanley
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 5046:
To be brigadier general
Col. Joseph Composto
The following named officers 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 brigadier general
Col. Thomas J. Nicholson
Col. Douglas V. Odell, Jr.
Col. Cornell A. Wilson, Jr.
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to
a position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Raymond P. Ayres, Jr.
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to
a position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Earl B. Hailston
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to
a position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. Frank Libutti
in the navy
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
Capt. Craig R. Quigley
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Naval Reserve to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) John B. Cotton
Rear Adm. (lh) Vernon P. Harrison
Rear Adm. (lh) Robert C. Marlay
Rear Adm. (lh) Steven R. Morgan
Rear Adm. (lh) Clifford J. Sturek
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Naval Reserve to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) John F. Brunelli
Rear Adm. (lh) John N. Costas
Rear Adm. (lh) Joseph C. Hare
Rear Adm. (lh) Daniel L. Kloeppel
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I
also report favorably nomination lists which were printed in full in
the Records of March 18, 1999 and May 12, 1999, at the end of the
Senate proceedings, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of
reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the
Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.
In the Navy nomination of Don A. Frasier, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 18, 1999.
In the Air Force nomination of Donna R. Shay, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 12, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Joseph B. Hines, and
ending * Peter J. Molik, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May
12, 1999.
In the Army nomination of Timothy P. Edinger, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 12, 1999.
In the Army nomination of Chris A. Phillips, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 12, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Robert B. Heathcock, and
ending James B. Mills, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12,
1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Paul B. Little, Jr., and
ending John M. Shepherd, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May
12, 1999.
In the Army nominations beginning Bryan D. Baugh, and
ending Jack A. Woodford, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May
12, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nominations beginning Dale A. Crabtree,
Jr, and ending Kevin P. Toomey, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 12, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nominations beginning James C.
Addington, and ending David J. Wilson, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 12, 1999.
In the Marine Corps nominations beginning James C. Andrus,
and ending Philip A. Wilson, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May
12, 1999.
In the Navy nomination of Norberto G. Jimenez, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of May 12, 1999.
In the Navy nominations beginning Neil R. Bourassa, and
ending Steven D. Tate, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12,
1999.
In the Navy nominations beginning Basilio D. Bena, and
ending Harold T. Workman, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May
12, 1999.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
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. ASHCROFT:
S. 1113. A bill to amend title XXIV of the Revised
Statutes, relating to civil rights, to prohibit
discrimination against nongovernmental organizations and
certain individuals on the basis of religion in the
distribution of government funds to provide government
assistance and the distribution of the assistance, to allow
the organizations to accept the funds to provide the
assistance to the individuals without impairing the religious
character of the organizations or the religious freedom of
the individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 1114. A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977 to establish a more cooperative and effective
method for rulemaking that takes into account the special
needs and concerns of smaller miners; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1115. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area; to the Committee on Veterans
Affairs.
By Mr. NICKLES:
S. 1116. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exclude income from the transportation of oil and gas by
pipeline from subpart F income; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Robb, and
Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1117. A bill to establish the Corinth Unit of Shiloh
National Military Park, in the vicinity of the city of
Corinth, Mississippi, and in the State of Tennessee, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 1118. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition
Act to convert the price support program for sugarcane and
sugar beets into a system of solely recourse loans to provide
for the gradual elimination of the program; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 1119. A bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1950, to
continue funding of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Bryan,
[[Page 10758]]
Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Biden, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1120 A bill to ensure that children enrolled in medicaid
and other Federal means-tested programs at highest risk for
lead poisoning are identified and treated, and for other
purposes; to the committee on Finance.
Mr. LEAHY:
S. 1121. A bill to amend the Clayton Act to enhance the
authority of the Attorney General to prevent certain mergers
and acquisitions that would unreasonably limit competition;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. STEVENS:
S. 1122. An original bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2000, and for other purposes; from the Committee on
Appropriations; placed on the calendar.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Abraham,
Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 1123. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of imported food, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Bond, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Robb, Mr. hagel, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Edwards):
S.J. Res. 25. A joint resolution expressing the sense of
Congress with respect to the court-martial conviction of the
late Rear Admiral Charles Butler McVay, III, and calling upon
the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the
final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Bond, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Robb, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Breaux, Mr.. Torricelli, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Inouye):
S.J. Res. 26. A joint resolution expressing the sense of
Congress with respect to the courtmartial conviction of the
late Rear Admiral Charles Butler McVay, III, and calling upon
the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the
final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis; read the first time.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. Con. Res. 34. A concurrent resolution relating to the
observance of ``In Memory'' Day; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 1113. A bill to amend title XXIV of the Revised Statutes, relating
to civil rights, to prohibit discrimination against nongovernmental
organizations and certain individuals on the basis of religion in the
distribution of government funds to provide government assistance and
the distribution of the assistance, to allow the organizations to
accept the funds to provide the assistance to the individuals without
impairing the religious character of the organizations or the religious
freedom of the individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
charitable choice expansion act of 1999
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, America's best ideas for helping the
poor have come from grassroots communities and private organizations of
people who know and care about their neighbors. These groups see people
and their life experiences, not theories or statistics. We have known
for years that government solutions have failed miserably in moving
people from dependency and despair to responsibility and independence.
For years America's churches and charities have been leading the way in
helping the poor achieve dignity and self-sufficiency. This is why I
have been advocating that government should find ways to help these
organizations unleash the cultural remedy our society so desperately
needs.
Therefore, it was with great interest that I heard about Vice
President Gore's statements Monday in Atlanta expressing his support
for Charitable Choice. The Vice President's interest in Charitable
Choice is welcome news. Governor Bush is in the forefront of Charitable
Choice solutions. Truly, where once there was contention and debate,
there now is swelling bipartisan agreement on the promise of Charitable
Choice.
Congress has been in the forefront of encouraging the type of faith-
based solutions that the Vice President was promoting yesterday in
Atlanta. The 1996 welfare reform law contains the Charitable Choice
provision I authored, which encourages states to partner with faith-
based organizations to serve welfare recipients with federal dollars.
Last fall, we expanded Charitable Choice to cover services provided
under the Community Services Block Grant program, which provides funds
to local agencies to alleviate poverty in their communities. And just
last week, the Senate approved a juvenile justice bill containing
Charitable Choice for services provided to at-risk juveniles, such as
counseling for troubled youth.
The Charitable Choice provision in the 1996 welfare reform law was
one way to achieve the goal of inviting the greater participation of
charitable and faith-based organizations in providing services to the
poor. The provision allows charitable and faith-based organizations to
compete for contracts and voucher programs on an equal basis with all
other non-governmental providers when the state or local government
chooses to use private sector providers for delivering welfare services
to the poor under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program.
In the past three years, we have begun to hear about how Charitable
Choice is opening doors for the government and communities of faith to
work together to help our nation's poor and needy gain hope and self-
sufficiency. For example, shortly after passage of the federal welfare
law, Governor George Bush of Texas signed an executive order directing
``all pertinent executive branch agencies to take all necessary steps
to implement the `charitable choice' provision of the federal welfare
law.'' Cookman United Methodist Church, a 100 member parish in
Philadelphia, received a state contract to run its ``Transitional
Journey Ministry,'' which provides life and job skills to welfare
mothers and places them into jobs with benefits. In less than a year,
the church placed 22 welfare recipients into jobs. Payne Memorial
Outreach Center, an affiliate of a Baltimore church, has helped over
450 welfare recipients find jobs under a state contract.
In light of these success stories around the nation, more and more
states and counties are beginning to see what a critical role the
faith-based community can play in helping people move off of welfare.
They are eager to put the Charitable Choice concept into action in
their communities.
We have always known that Charitable Choice is truly bipartisan in
nature, and has the support of over 35 organizations that span a wide
political and social spectrum. Members from both sides of the aisle
here in the Senate have voted in support of this provision. And now,
with the Vice President's support for Charitable Choice, I am
reintroducing legislation that I introduced in the 105th Congress, the
``Charitable Choice Expansion Act,'' which would expand the Charitable
Choice concept across all federally funded social service programs.
The substance of the Charitable Choice Expansion Act is virtually
identical to that of the original Charitable Choice provision of the
welfare reform law. The only real difference between the two provisions
is that the new bill covers many more federal programs than the
original provision.
While the original Charitable Choice provision applies mainly to the
new welfare reform block grant program, the Charitable Choice Expansion
Act applies to all federal government programs in which the government
is authorized to use nongovernmental organizations to provide federally
funded services to beneficiaries. Some of the programs that would be
covered under this legislation include housing, substance abuse
prevention and treatment, seniors services, the Social Services Block
Grant, abstinence education and child welfare services.
With this recent expression of bipartisan support for Charitable
Choice from the Vice President, now is the
[[Page 10759]]
time for Congress to move quickly to pass the Charitable Choice
Expansion Act, so that we can empower the organizations that are best
equipped to instill hope and transform lives to expand their good work
across the nation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1113
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE UNDER GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
BY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes is amended by inserting
after section 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1994) the following:
``SEC. 1994A. CHARITABLE CHOICE.
``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
`Charitable Choice Expansion Act of 1999'.
``(b) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to prohibit discrimination against nongovernmental
organizations and certain individuals on the basis of
religion in the distribution of government funds to provide
government assistance and distribution of the assistance,
under government programs described in subsection (c); and
``(2) to allow the organizations to accept the funds to
provide the assistance to the individuals without impairing
the religious character of the organizations or the religious
freedom of the individuals.
``(c) Religious Organizations Included as Nongovernmental
Providers.--For any program carried out by the Federal
Government, or by a State or local government with Federal
funds, in which the Federal, State, or local government is
authorized to use nongovernmental organizations, through
contracts, grants, certificates, vouchers, or other forms of
disbursement, to provide assistance to beneficiaries under
the program, the government shall consider, in the same basis
as other nongovernmental organizations, religious
organizations to provide the assistance under the program, so
long as the program is implemented in a manner consistent
with the Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the
Constitution. Neither the Federal Government nor a State or
local government receiving funds under such program shall
discriminate against an organization that provides assistance
under, or applies to provide assistance under, such program,
on the basis that the organization has a religious character.
``(d) Exclusions.--As used in subsection (c), the term
`program' does not include activities carried out under--
``(1) Federal programs providing education to children
eligible to attend elementary schools or secondary schools,
as defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801) (except for activities
to assist students in obtaining the recognized equivalents of
secondary school diplomas);
``(2) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.);
``(3) the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.); or
``(4) the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.).
``(e) Religious Character and Independence.--
``(1) In general.--A religious organization that provides
assistance under a program described in subsection (c) shall
retain its independence from Federal, State, and local
governments, including such organization's control over the
definition, development, practice, and expression of its
religious beliefs.
``(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal
Government nor a State or local government shall require a
religious organization--
``(A) to alter its form of internal governance; or
``(B) to remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other
symbols;
in order to be eligible to provide assistance under a program
described in subsection (c).
``(f) Employment Practices.--
``(1) Tenets and teachings.--A religious organization that
provides assistance under a program described in subsection
(c) may require that its employees providing assistance under
such program adhere to the religious tenets and teachings of
such organization, and such organization may require that
those employees adhere to rules forbidding the use of drugs
or alcohol.
``(2) Title vii exemption.--The exemption of a religious
organization provided under section 702 or 703(e)(2) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, 2000e-2(e)(2))
regarding employment practices shall not be affected by the
religious organization's provision of assistance under, or
receipt of funds from, a program described in subsection (c).
``(g) Rights of Beneficiaries of Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--If an individual described in paragraph
(3) has an objection to the religious character of the
organization from which the individual receives, or would
receive, assistance funded under any program described in
subsection (c), the appropriate Federal, State, or local
governmental entity shall provide to such individual (if
otherwise eligible for such assistance) within a reasonable
period of time after the date of such objection, assistance
that--
``(A) is from an alternative organization that is
accessible to the individual; and
``(B) has a value that is not less than the value of the
assistance that the individual would have received from such
organization.
``(2) Notice.--The appropriate Federal, State, or local
governmental entity shall ensure that notice is provided to
individuals described in paragraph (3) of the rights of such
individuals under this section.
``(3) Individual described.--An individual described in
this paragraph is an individual who receives or applies for
assistance under a program described in subsection (c).
``(h) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--
``(1) Grants and contracts.--A religious organization
providing assistance through a grant or contract under a
program described in subsection (c) shall not discriminate,
in carrying out the program, against an individual described
in subsection (g)(3) on the basis of religion, a religious
belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to
actively participate in a religious practice.
``(2) Indirect forms of disbursement.--A religious
organization providing assistance through a voucher
certificate, or other form of indirect disbursement under a
program described in subsection (c) shall not deny an
individual described in subsection (g)(3) admission into such
program on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a
refusal to hold a religious belief.
``(i) Fiscal Accountability.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
religious organization providing assistance under any program
described in subsection (c) shall be subject to the same
regulations as other nongovernmental organizations to account
in accord with generally accepted accounting principles for
the use of such funds provided under such program.
``(2) Limited audit.--Such organization shall segregate
government funds provided under such program into a separate
account. Only the government funds shall be subject to audit
by the government.
``(j) Compliance.--A party alleging that the rights of the
party under this section have been violated by a State or
local government may bring a civil action pursuant to section
1979 against the official or government agency that has
allegedly committed such violation. A party alleging that the
rights of the party under this section have been violated by
the Federal Government may bring a civil action for
appropriate relief in an appropriate Federal district court
against the official or government agency that has allegedly
committed such violation.
``(k) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.--No
funds provided through a grant or contract to a religious
organization to provide assistance under any program
described in subsection (c) shall be expended for sectarian
worship, instruction, or proselytization.
``(l) Effect on State and Local Funds.--If a State or local
government contributes State or local funds to carry out a
program described in subsection (c), the State or local
government may segregate the State or local funds from the
Federal funds provided to carry out the program or may
commingle the State or local funds with the Federal funds. If
the State or local government commingles the State or local
funds, the provisions of this section shall apply to the
commingled funds in the same manner, and to the same extent,
as the provisions apply to the Federal funds.
``(m) Treatment of Intermediate Contractors.--If a
nongovernmental organization (referred to in this subsection
as an `intermediate organization'), acting under a contract
or other agreement with the Federal Government or a State or
local government, is given the authority under the contract
or agreement to select non-governmental organizations to
provide assistance under the programs described in subsection
(c), the intermediate organization shall have the same duties
under this section as the government but shall retain all
other rights of a nongovernmental organization under this
section.''.
______
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 1114. A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 to establish a more cooperative and effective method for
rulemaking that takes into account the special needs and concerns of
smaller miners; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
the small mine advocacy review panel act
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Mine Advocacy
Review Panel Act, or ``Small Mine,'' Act of 1999.
Achieving mine safety starts with cooperation. Cooperation is at the
heart of the safest workplaces, where employers and employees strive to
establish open lines of communication on
[[Page 10760]]
safety, to provide and wear the right protective equipment, and to give
and follow effective training. But cooperation can't stop there. To
have safe work sites, there must also be an understanding of what
safety rules mean, how they are to be implemented, and what results
should be expected. This is the cooperation that should exist between
operators and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or MSHA, and
it cannot be ignored or undervalued.
The bill I am introducing today inserts a new level of cooperation
into MSHA's rulemaking. Called the Small Mine Advocacy Review Panel
Act, or ``Small Mine'' Act, this bill would mandate that MSHA and
panels of small operators discuss newly proposed rules and their
potential impact early in the regulatory process. This practice is
currently employed by OSHA and EPA and has been of great benefit both
for the smaller employers and the agency because it forces both parties
to comment and respond in an open forum. I have always believed that
the simple act of talking about safety actually leads to safety, and I
embrace any approach that forces those who write the rules and those
who must comply with them to sit down together and find solutions.
The Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training has a strong
interest in MSHA's rulemaking procedure as it relates to small
operators. In addition, I am well aware that the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs shares this interest as it relates to the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In
light of this, as this bill is centered on MSHA's responsiveness to
smaller operators on matters of safety and health, Chairman Thompson
has agreed to allow this bill to be referred to the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee.
MSHA has had great success when its rulemakings have been cooperative
with operators and miners. MSHA's draft Part 46 Training rule was
developed in collaboration with over fifteen industry representatives,
the Teamsters, the Boilermakers, and the Laborers Health & Safety Fund
of North America. By working together, the coalition came up with a
draft that everyone agreed on and that was completed by MSHA's internal
deadline. A true rulemaking success story.
But other MSHA rules, such as MSHA's proposed Noise Rule, have
abandoned cooperative partnerships with smaller operators and instead
embraced the old ``big brother'' style of regulation. It is in such
rulemakings that the Small Miner bill would make a world of difference.
The Noise Rule would have so severe an impact on smaller mine operators
that it is seriously questionable whether those who wrote this rule
have ever actually been to a small mine. The bottom line is that this
rule prohibits small operators from supplying miners with personal
protective equipment, such as ear plugs, until after they have tried to
lower the noise level by buying new and ``quieter'' machines at
incredible cost, tinkering with old machines, rotating employees around
to different stations, and implementing all other ``feasible''
engineering and administrative controls. All this despite the fact that
many routinely-used machines can never be made to run as quietly as
MSHA mandates no matter how much money is spent, and that miners will
have to be rotated outside their areas of training and expertise.
This proposed rule is in strict opposition to both MSHA's and OSHA's
current rules which allow miners to wear ear plugs in the first
instance. It also totally abandons logic. It's like proposing a rule
outlawing employees from using steel-toed shoes and instead regulating
that nothing may ever fall on a worker's foot. It just doesn't make any
sense.
By discussing this rule with small operators early in the rulemaking
process, cooperative approaches could have been flushed out and
solutions achieved which satisfy both MSHA's regulatory objectives and
minimize the burden on small operators. As evidenced by this proposed
rule, it is clearly insufficient to have a one time ``comment period''
or even hold public hearings, because the small operator's perspective
is so noticeably absent from the rulemaking process. It is not enough
to claim that safety is paramount while simultaneously operating in a
vacuum to pump out regulations that no one can understand or implement.
Compliance must be based on an effective working relationship where the
goals set by the regulators are understood and achievable by the
industry being regulated. If operators are responsible for complying
with MSHA's regulations, then there is no excuse for failing to include
them in the process from Day One. By passing the ``Small Mine'' bill,
operators and MSHA would be responsible for working together to craft
rules that will actually improve safety.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1114
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 Mine Advocacy Review
Panel Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to establish a more cooperative
and effective method for rulemaking with respect to mandatory
health or safety standards that takes into account the
special needs and concerns of small mine operators.
SEC. 3 AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF
1997.
(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(2) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 811(a)(2)) is
amended by inserting before the last sentence the following:
``The procedures for gathering comments from small entities
as described in section 609 of title 5, United States Code,
shall apply under this section and small mine operators shall
be considered to be small entities for purposes of such
section. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term
`small mine operator' has the meaning given the term `small
business concern' under section 3 of the Small Business Act
(including any rules promulgated by the Small Business
Administration) as such term relates to a mining
operation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 609(d) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``Agency and'' and
inserting ``Agency, the Mine Safety and Health Administration
and''.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1115. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a national cemetery for veterans in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, area; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
national cemetery in western pennsylvania
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which will
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a national
cemetery in the Pittsburgh area of Western Pennsylvania.
As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' affairs, I make it my
responsibility to see that our nation's veterans are cared for after
serving honorably in the Armed Forces. Part of this care involves
honoring the memory of their service upon death. Our nation's veterans
are an aging population. At present, 46% of the area's veterans
population is over age 65. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has
estimated that by the year 2008, the number of veterans' deaths will
peak and remain at a high level for years afterward. To anticipate the
increased demand for burial space and to accommodate family and friends
wanting nearby cemeteries at which to honor and remember their loved
ones, the Congress and VA must act now.
The legislation that I introduce today will alleviate the long
overdue wait for a national cemetery which the veterans in the western
Pennsylvania area have had to endure. Such a cemetery is necessary due
to the over 750,000 veterans who reside in the area, including veterans
in parts of the neighboring states of Ohio, Maryland, and West
Virginia. I should also point out that Pennsylvania, a state with the
fifth highest veteran population in the country, has only one national
cemetery within its borders open for new burials. This cemetery, at
Indiantown Gap, serves veterans in the eastern portion of the
Commonwealth and is more than 225 miles from Pittsburgh.
[[Page 10761]]
In 1987, VA ranked the Pittsburgh-area among the top ten population
centers most in need of a national cemetery. In 1991, VA began the
process of cemetery site-selection and Congress appropriated $250,000
for an Environmental Impact Statement. Four potential sites were
identified in the Pittsburgh area. Despite this headway, construction
on a national cemetery never commenced.
The high veteran population of this region has waited far too long to
see the creation of this national cemetery. Our nation's veterans,
having given so much for us, deserve a proper burial site in the
proximity of their homes. Veterans elsewhere around this country take
for granted the availability of a nearby national cemetery. If passed,
this legislation will ensure that what began over a decade ago will now
become reality.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1115
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38, United
States Code, a national cemetery in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, area to serve the needs of veterans and their
families.
(b) Consultation in Selection of Site.--Before selecting
the site for the national cemetery established under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with appropriate
officials of the State of Pennsylvania and local officials of
the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area.
(c) Report.--As soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the establishment of the national cemetery under
subsection (a). The report shall set forth a schedule for the
establishment of the cemetery and an estimate of the costs
associated with the establishment of the cemetery.
______
By Mr. NICKLES:
S. 1116. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
income from the transportation of oil and gas by pipeline from subpart
F income; to the Committee on Finance.
the foreign pipeline transportation income act
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which will right a wrong that has been in the tax code for too long.
This legislation will clarify the U.S. tax treatment of foreign
pipeline transportation income. This legislation is needed because
current tax law causes active foreign pipeline transportation income to
be unintentionally trapped within the anti-abuse tax rules of Subpart
F. These anti-abuse rules were originally established to prevent
companies from avoiding payment of U.S. tax on easily movable and
passive income. Pipeline transportation income, however, is neither
passive nor easily movable. Pipes are located where the natural
resources and energy needs are--they cannot be placed just anywhere.
Further, one a pipe is in the ground, it is tough to move.
Referring to the legislative history, we find that Congress did not
intend these anti-abuse rules to target foreign pipeline transportation
income. Rather, these rules were intended to reach the significant
revenues derived by highly profitable oil related activities that were
sourced to a low-tax country as opposed to the country in which the oil
or gas was extracted or ultimately consumed. Furthermore, it is
important to note that when these anti-abuse rules were being
considered and then put into place, pipeline companies were not engaged
in international development activities, rather they were focused
solely on domestic infrastructure development.
Today, pipeline companies are continuing to actively pursue all
development opportunities domestically, yet they are somewhat limited.
The real growth for U.S. pipeline companies, however, is in the
international arena. These new opportunities have arisen from fairly
recent efforts by foreign countries to privatize their energy sectors.
Enabling U.S. pipeline companies to engage in energy infrastructure
projects abroad will result in tremendous benefits back home. For
example, more U.S. employees will be needed to craft and close deals,
to build the plants and pipelines, and to operate the facilities. New
investment overseas also will bring new demands for U.S. equipment. Yet
before any of these benefits can be realized, U.S. companies must be
able to defeat their foreign competitors and win projects.
Unfortunately, current U.S. tax laws significantly hinder the ability
of U.S. companies to win such projects.
We must act now if we are to ensure that U.S. companies remain
competitive players in the international marketplace. There are
incremental, low cost, reforms that we can and must make. My
legislation--to clarify that U.S. tax treatment of foreign pipeline
transportation income--is one such low-cost reform.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to bring current U.S.
tax law in line with good tax policy. It is up to us to do all we can
to keep America competitive in the global economy.
______
By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Robb, and Mr.
Jeffords):
S. 1117. A bill to establish the Corinth Unit of Shiloh National
Military Park, in the vicinity of the city of Corinth, Mississippi, and
in the State of Tennessee, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
corinth battlefield preservation act of 1999
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, 137 years ago today, Major General Henry W.
Halleck and his 120,000 man strong Union Army commenced the siege of
Corinth, Mississippi. The ensuing six month battle between General
Halleck's federal troops and General P. G. T. Beauregard's 53,000
Confederate defenders marked a turning point in the war between the
states. It was a fierce engagement over a mere 16 square feet parcel.
This small piece of real estate was of critical strategic importance to
both the North and the South.
It was in Corinth, Mississippi that the Memphis and Charleston and
Mobile and Ohio Railroads crossed paths. This vital east-west and
north-south railroad junction served as a passageway for troops and
supplies moving from Illinois to Alabama and from Tennessee to points
further east such as South Carolina and Virginia.
Ed Bearss, Chief Historian Emeritus of the National Park Service,
stated that ``during the Spring of 1862, Corinth was the most important
city in the Confederacy and almost the length of the War . . . because
of the railroads.'' In fact, because of its status as a vital rail hub,
the town was occupied by either Confederate or Union forces from 1861
to 1865. It also served as a springboard for the careers of over 200
leading Confederate and Federal generals who were stationed in Corinth
at one time or another. A figure matched by few other locations.
Corinth is a city that exemplifies the trials and tribulations
experienced by soldiers and civilians throughout the Civil War. A town
whose railways lied at the center of a grand military chess match. An
area, like many others north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, racked
by the ravages of war.
Even with its new status as a National Historic Landmark, Corinth is
still considered a ``Civil War Landmark At Risk.'' The Civil War Sites
Advisory Commission, chartered by Congress to assess threats to
America's premier historic sites, identified Corinth as a priority one
battlefield in critical need of coordinated nationwide action by the
year 2000. Local, state, and national preservation groups agree. And,
so do I.
Mr. President, today, I am proud and honored to introduce the Corinth
Battlefield Preservation Act of 1999. This much needed legislation
would provide further protection for one of America's most important
Civil War sites by establishing Corinth as a unit of the Shiloh
National Military Park.
The 106th Congress needs to add the Corinth Battlefield and its
surrounding sites to the National Park System
[[Page 10762]]
given the area's pivotal role in American history. It is also
appropriate for Congress to establish Corinth as a unit of the Shiloh
National Military Park as these two sites were indelibly linked during
the Civil War. The 1862 battle of Shiloh was actually the first strike
in the Union force's overall Corinth Campaign. It was in April 1862,
that federal and southern forces competing for control over Corinth
first struggled in the Battle of Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing. The battle
for Corinth also had international implications. As a result of the
Union's victory, the British government chose not to officially
recognize the Confederacy.
The conflict in and around Corinth eventually included the Battles of
Iuka, Tupelo, and Brices' Crossroads, as well as engagements in
Booneville, Rienzi, Ripley, and numerous skirmishes in southwest
Tennessee and northeast Alabama.
In 1862, Union General Halleck said ``Richmond and Corinth . . . are
the greatest strategic points of the war, and our success at these
points should be insured at all hazards.'' Halleck's subordinate,
General Ulysses S. Grant, regarded Corinth as ``the great strategic
position in the west between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers and
between Nashville and Vicksburg.'' In arguing for the defense of
Corinth, Confederate General Beauregard stated to General Samual
Cooper, Adjutant and Inspector General of the Confederate States Army
that, ``if defeated here [in Corinth,] we lose the Mississippi Valley
and probably our cause, whereas we could even afford to lose for a
while Charleston and Savannah for the purpose of defeating Buell's
army, which would not only insure us the valley of the Mississippi, but
our independence.'' Corinth's strategic importance to both armies led
to some of the bloodiest battles in the Western Theater. Tens of
thousands of soldiers were killed or wounded in this bitter offensive.
It was also here that thousands of war refugees, mostly African-
Americans from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama, sought shelter with
the Union Army in Corinth. After President Lincoln's Emancipation
Proclamation, the federal army created a model ``Contraband Camp.'' By
the Spring of 1863, the camp housed around 4,000 freedmen. Almost half
of these freedmen joined the ``First Alabama Infantry of African
Descent'' which later became the ``55th Colored Infantry.''
Corinth is also one of the few existing Civil War sites that boasts
extraordinary earthworks and fortifications--many of which remain in
pristine condition. A National Park Service studying authority stated
that, ``today the surviving [Corinth] earthworks are one of the largest
and best preserved groups of field fortifications, dating to 1862 in
the United States.'' Unfortunately, many of these historic resources,
undisturbed for over 130 years, are now threatened. For example, a 500-
yard section of earthworks was specifically sold for development. These
earthworks are important to our national heritage because they helped
shape the face of war from the 1860's to today. In fact, trench warfare
evolved from the battle for Corinth. These earthworks and
fortifications are symbolic reminders of the epic struggle that ensued
between friends and neighbors and the Civil War's lasting impact on
modern warfare.
Although, the Battle of Shiloh has been etched into American history
as part of the Shiloh National Military Park, a number of important
historic sites and resources relating to the pre-battle and the rest of
the Corinth Campaign have not been adequately protected or interpreted.
Establishing the Shiloh Nationally Military Park as the nation's second
Military Park back in 1894 was a good start. Now it is time for the
106th Congress to complete the preservation effort. Congress needs to
give a lasting presence to the Corinth Battlefield, a key component of
the historic Shiloh-Corinth Corridor.
Corinth remains a central transportation gateway. It serves as a
junction intersecting Highways 72, running east and west, and Highway
45, which runs north and south. It is also a mecca for dedicated
history buffs given the town's close proximity to Shiloh and other
Civil War sites and its connection to the Corinth Campaign.
I am sure that my colleagues will agree that the sixteen Corinth
Civil War sites designated as National Historic Landmarks are far too
important to be relegated solely to review in history books or by
professional historians. Americans need to see it.
The 106th Congress can and must highlight the importance of the Siege
and Battle of Corinth for the millions of adults and children, both
American and foreign, interested in learning about an essential facet
of Americana.
For over one hundred years, the United States Congress has advanced
the notion that our national interest is best served by preserving
America's historic treasures. Not only by ensuring the proper
interpretation of important historic events, but also the places--the
properties where pivotal military milestones occurred.
As Ed Bearss proclaimed, ``the Battle of Corinth was the bloodiest
battle in the State of Mississippi. Troops were brought from New
Orleans, Mobile, Texas and Arkansas because Corinth was such an
important place. With the fall of Corinth, Perryville, Kentucky, and
Antietam, Maryland the Confederacy was lost.'' We owe it to our
ancestors and to future generations to protect Corinth and the wealth
of Civil War history that exudes from this small town.
Mr. President, the measure offered today is vital to the successful
interpretation and preservation of Corinth. It builds upon previous
efforts and gives Corinth its proper status as one of America's most
significant Civil War sites.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of the
Corinth Battlefield Preservation Act of 1999. A bipartisan measure
which is widely supported by local, state, regional, national, and
international preservation organizations.
Along with the strong local support shown by the residents and local
officials of Corinth and Alcorn County as well as assistance from
several Civil War preservation groups, I would also like to take a
moment to thank Rosemary Williams of Corinth, Woody Harrel,
Superintendent of the Shiloh Military Park, and Anne Thompson, Manager
of the Interim Corinth Civil War Interpretive Center. They were
instrumental in assisting with the preparation of this important
historic preservation legislation.
Mr. President, I also want to thank my colleagues, Senator Cochran,
Senator Robb, and Senator Jeffords, for their formal support of this
pro-parks, pro-history measure.
I hope that the rest of my colleagues will join with us in taking
this necessary step to protect our heritage so that our children and
grandchildren can gain an understanding of the struggles of this great
nation. Struggles that have help shaped our American democracy and
transformed our diverse states and peoples into a cohesive and
prosperous union better prepared to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the next millennium. Corinth has a story to tell
Americans today and in the future. Corinth merits inclusion in the
Shiloh National Military Park.
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. 1117
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 ``Corinth Battlefield
Preservation Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in 1996, Congress authorized the establishment and
construction of a center--
(A) to facilitate the interpretation of the Siege and
Battle of Corinth and other Civil War actions in the area in
and around the city of Corinth, Mississippi; and
(B) to enhance public understanding of the significance of
the Corinth campaign and the Civil War relative to the
western theater of operations, in cooperation with--
(i) State or local governmental entities;
(ii) private organizations; and
(iii) individuals;
(2) the Corinth Battlefield was ranked as a priority 1
battlefield having critical need for
[[Page 10763]]
coordinated nationwide action by the year 2000 by the Civil
War Sites Advisory Commission in its report on Civil War
Battlefields of the United States;
(3) there is a national interest in protecting and
preserving sites of historic significance associated with the
Civil War; and
(4) the States of Mississippi and Tennessee and their
respective local units of government--
(A) have the authority to prevent or minimize adverse uses
of these historic resources; and
(B) can play a significant role in the protection of the
historic resources related to the Civil War battles fought in
the area in and around the city of Corinth.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish the Corinth Unit of the Shiloh National
Military Park--
(A) in the city of Corinth, Mississippi; and
(B) in the State of Tennessee;
(2) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to manage,
protect, and interpret the resources associated with the
Civil War Siege and the Battle of Corinth that occurred in
and around the city of Corinth, in cooperation with--
(A) the State of Mississippi;
(B) the State of Tennessee;
(C) the city of Corinth, Mississippi;
(D) other public entities; and
(E) the private sector; and
(3) to authorize a special resource study to identify other
Civil War sites area in and around the city of Corinth that--
(A) are consistent with the themes of the Siege and Battle
of Corinth;
(B) meet the criteria for designation as a unit of the
National Park System; and
(C) are considered appropriate for including in the Unit.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Corinth
Unit'', numbered 304/80,007, and dated October 1998.
(2) Part.--The term ``Park'' means the Shiloh National
Military Park.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Unit.--The term ``Unit'' means the Corinth Unit of
Shiloh National Military Park established under section 4.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIT.
(a) In General.--There is established in the States of
Mississippi and Tennessee the Corinth Unit of the Shiloh
National Military Park.
(b) Composition of Unit.--The Unit shall be comprised of--
(1) the tract consisting of approximately 20 acres
generally depicted as ``Park Boundary'' on the Map, and
containing--
(A) the Battery Robinett; and
(B) the site of the interpretive center authorized under
section 602 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 430f-5); and
(2) any additional land that the Secretary determines to be
suitable for inclusion in the Unit that--
(A) is under the ownership of a public entity or nonprofit
organization; and
(B) has been identified by the Siege and Battle of Corinth
National Historic Landmark Study, dated January 8, 1991.
(c) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the office of the Director
of the National Park Service.
SEC. 5. LAND ACQUISITION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire land and
interests in land within the boundary of the Park as depicted
on the Map, by--
(1) donation;
(2) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
(3) exchange.
(b) Exception.--Land may be acquired only by donation
from--
(1) The State of Mississippi (including a political
subdivision of the State);
(2) the State of Tennessee (including a political
subdivision of the State); or
(3) the organization known as ``Friends of the Siege and
Battle of Corinth''.
SEC. 6. PARK MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the Unit in
accordance with this Act and the laws generally applicable to
units of the National Park System, including--
(1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916
(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
(2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects,
and antiquities of national significance, and for other
purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(b) Duties.--In accordance with section 602 of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.
430f-5), the Secretary shall--
(1) commemorate and interpret, for the benefit of visitors
and the general public, the Siege and Battle of Corinth and
other Civil War actions in the area in and around the city of
Corinth within the larger context of the Civil War and
American history, including the significance of the Civil War
Siege and Battle of Corinth in 1862 in relation to other
operations in the western theater of the Civil War; and
(2) identify and preserve surviving features from the Civil
War era in the area in and around the city of Corinth,
including both military and civilian themes that include--
(A) the role of railroads in the Civil War;
(B) the story of the Corinth contraband camp; and
(C) the development of field fortifications as a tactic of
war.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--
(1) In general.--To carry this Act, the Secretary may enter
into cooperative agreements with entities in the public and
private sectors, including--
(A) colleges and universities;
(B) historical societies;
(C) State and local agencies; and
(D) nonprofit organizations.
(2) Technical assistance.--To develop cooperative land use
strategies and conduct activities that facilitate the
conservation of the historic, cultural, natural, and scenic
resources of the Unit, the Secretary may provide technical
assistance, to the extent that a recipient of technical
assistance is engaged in the protection, interpretation, or
commemoration of historically significant Civil War resources
in the area in and around the city of Corinth, to--
(A) the State of Mississippi (including a political
subdivision of the State);
(B) the State of Tennessee (including a political
subdivision of the State);
(C) a governmental entity;
(D) a nonprofit organization; and
(E) a private property owner.
(d) Resources Outside the Unit.--Nothing in subsection
(c)(2) authorizes the Secretary to own or manage any resource
outside the Unit.
SEC. 7 AUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.
(a) In General.--To determine whether certain additional
properties are appropriate for inclusion in the Unit, the
Secretary shall conduct a special resource study of land in
and around the city of Corinth, Mississippi, and nearby areas
in the State of Tennessee that--
(1) have a relationship to the Civil War Siege and Battle
of Corinth in 1862; and
(2) are under the ownership of--
(A) the State of Mississippi (including a political
subdivision of the State);
(B) the State of Tennessee (including a political
subdivision of the State);
(C) a nonprofit organization; or
(D) a private person.
(b) Contents of Study.--The study shall--
(1) identify the full range of resources and historic
themes associated with the Civil War Siege and Battle of
Corinth in 1862, including the relationship of the campaign
to other operations in the western theater of the Civil War
that occurred in--
(A) the area in and around the city of Corinth; and
(B) the State of Tennessee;
(2) identify alternatives for preserving features from the
Civil War era in the area in and around the city of Corinth,
including both military and civilian themes involving--
(A) the role of the railroad in the Civil War;
(B) the story of the Corinth contraband camp; and
(C) the development of field fortifications as a tactic of
war;
(3) identify potential partners that might support efforts
by the Secretary to carry out this Act, including--
(A) State entities and their political subdivisions;
(B) historical societies and commissions;
(C) civic groups; and
(D) nonprofit organizations;
(4) identify alternatives to avoid land use conflicts; and
(5) include cost estimates for any necessary activity
associated with the alternatives identified under this
subsection, including--
(A) acquisition;
(B) development;
(C) interpretation;
(D) operation; and
(E) maintenance.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year and 180 days after the
date on which funds are made available to carry out this
section, the Secretary shall submit a report describing the
findings of the study under subsection (a) to--
(1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act, including $3,000,000 for the
construction of an interpretive center under section 602(d)
of title VI of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 430f-59d)).
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 1118. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
convert the price support program for sugarcane and sugar beets into a
system of
[[Page 10764]]
solely recourse loans to provide for the gradual elimination of the
program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
sugar program phase out legislation
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues Senators
Feinstein, Chafee, Gregg, and Santorum to introduce legislation that
phases out the federal sugar program. Remember that old story, if you
believe this, I've got some swampland to sell you in Florida? Boy, I
wish I bought some of that swampland and became a sugar grower.
It is a can't miss, can't lose proposition where all of the risk is
absorbed by the federal government and all of the reward goes to the
sugar barons. It is one of the last vestiges of a centralized,
subsidized U.S. farm sector which has mostly gone by the wayside.
Ten years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Odessa on the
Okeechobee with its generous price supports somehow still survives.
This is a special interest program that benefits a handful of sugar
barons at the expense of every man, woman and child in America.
Several years ago, the GAO estimated that consumers paid $1.4 billion
more at the cash register because of the sugar price support. Today,
because the world price for sugar is lower and the price paid in the
U.S. is higher, the cost to consumers could be twice as high.
And let's not forget. It has already cost America thousands of
refinery jobs. And it has already cost the Everglades hundreds of acres
of pristine wilderness. In Brooklyn and in Yonkers, we have lost one-
third of our refinery jobs in the last decade. Why? Because the sugar
program is such a bitter deal, refiners cannot get enough raw cane
sugar to remain open.
Four years ago, when we came within five votes in the House of
terminating the sugar program, the world market price for sugar was
about ten cents and the U.S. price about 20 cents. Today the world
price is less than a nickel and the U.S. price is almost a quarter. In
other words, the gulf between the free market and the sugar program is
getting wider.
Under any reasonable and rational measure the sugar program should be
repealed. If the issue is jobs, the environment or the consumer--then
we have no choice but to repeal. At all ends of the political spectrum
the answer is the same--it's time to repeal the sugar program.
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. 1118
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RECOURSE LOANS FOR PROCESSORS OF SUGARCANE AND
SUGAR BEETS AND REDUCTION IN LOAN RATES.
(a) Gradual Reduction in Loan Rates.--
(1) Sugarcane processor loans.--Section 156(a) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(a)) is
amended by striking ``equal to 18 cents per pound for raw
cane sugar.'' and inserting the following: ``, per pound for
raw cane sugar, equal to the following:
``(1) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the
1996, 1997, or 1998 crop, $0.18.
``(2) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the 1999
crop, $0.17.
``(3) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the 2000
crop, $0.16.
``(4) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the 2001
crop, $0.15.
``(5) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the 2002
crop, $0.14.''.
(2) Sugar beet processor loans.--Section 156(b) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(b)) is
amended by striking ``equal to 22.9 cents per pound for
refined beet sugar.'' and inserting the following: ``, per
pound of refined beet sugar, that reflects--
``(1) an amount that bears the same relation to the loan
rate in effect under subsection (a) for a crop as the
weighted average of producer returns for sugar beets bears to
the weighted average of producer returns for sugarcane,
expressed on a cents per pound basis for refined beet sugar
and raw cane sugar, for the most recent 5-year period for
which data are available; and
``(2) an amount that covers sugar beet processor fixed
marketing expenses.''.
(b) Conversion to Recourse Loans.--Section 156(e) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(e)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``only'' after ``this
section''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the
following:
``(2) National loan rates.--Recourse loans under this
section shall be made available at all locations nationally
at the rates specified in this section, without adjustment to
provide regional differentials.''.
(c) Conversion to Private Sector Financing.--Section 156 of
the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j);
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
``(i) Conversion to Private Sector Financing.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
``(1) no processor of any of the 2003 or subsequent crops
of sugarcane or sugar beets shall be eligible for a loan
under this section with respect to the crops; and
``(2) the Secretary may not make price support available,
whether in the form of loans, payments, purchases, or other
operations, for any of the 2003 and subsequent crops of sugar
beets and sugarcane by using the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation or other funds available to the
Secretary.''; and
(3) in subsection (j) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) by
striking ``subsection (f)'' and inserting ``subsections (f)
and (i)''.
(d) Termination of Marketing Quotas and Allotments.--
(1) Termination.--Part VII of subtitle B of title III of
the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359aa et
seq.) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 344(f)(2) of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1344(f)(2)) is
amended by striking ``sugar cane for sugar, sugar beets for
sugar,''.
(e) Other Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Price support for nonbasic agricultural commodities.--
(A) Designated nonbasic agricultural commodities.--Section
201(a) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446(a)) is
amended by striking ``milk, sugar beets, and sugarcane'' and
inserting ``, and milk''.
(B) Other nonbasic agricultural commodities.--Section 301
of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1447) is amended by
inserting ``(other than sugarcane and sugar beets)'' after
``title II''.
(2) Powers of commodity credit corporation.--Section 5(a)
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C.
714c(a)) is amended by inserting ``(except for the 2003 and
subsequent crops of sugarcane and sugar beets)'' after
``agricultural commodities''.
(3) Section 32 activities.--Section 32 of the Act of August
24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), is amended in the second sentence
of the first paragraph by inserting ``(other than sugarcane
and sugar beets)'' after ``commodity'' the last place it
appears.
(f) Assurance of Adequate Supplies of Sugar.--Section 902
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1446g note; Public
Law 99-198) is amended by striking subsection (a) and
inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--Beginning with the quota year for sugar
imports that begins after the 1998/1999 quota year, the
President shall use all authorities available to the
President as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of
Agriculture to ensure that adequate supplies of raw cane
sugar are made available to the United States market at
prices that are not greater than the higher of--
``(1) the world sugar price (adjusted to a delivered
basis); or
``(2) the raw cane sugar loan rate in effect under section
156 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C.
7272), plus interest.''.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation
sponsored by Senator Schumer to phase out the antiquated sugar subsidy.
The sugar program is nothing than a system of import restrictions,
subsidized loans, and price supports that benefit a limited number of
sugar growers.
I find it incredible that the federal government continues to support
a subsidy program that is driving the domestic refinery industry out of
existence and costing thousands of good jobs. The US Department of
Agriculture restricts the amount of sugar available to domestic
refineries. Without sugar, a sugar refinery cannot operate and that is
the result of this misguided program.
It is clear that the U.S. sugar policy has served to strangle this
country's sugar refining industry. By limiting the amount of raw cane
sugar available for production, there has been a 40 percent decline in
jobs in the sugar-cane refining industry. Since 1982, nine out of
twenty one cane sugar refineries in the U.S. have been forced out of
business. Those that have remained open are struggling to survive under
onerous import restrictions.
I first became involved with this issue in 1994 when David Koncelik,
the President and CEO of the California
[[Page 10765]]
and Hawaiian Sugar Company, informed me that his refinery was forced to
temporarily cease operations because it had no sugar.
This 93 year old refinery is the Nation's largest refinery and the
only such facility on the West Coast. C&H refines about 15 percent of
the total cane sugar consumed in the U.S.
C&H is capable of producing and selling 700,000 tons of refined sugar
annually. Therefore, the company requires in excess of 700,000 tons of
raw cane sugar to meet its sales demand.
Hawaii is C&H's sole source for its domestic raw cane sugar needs,
but Hawaii's cane sugar industry has been in decline for over 10 years.
This has meant that C&H is forced to cover over half its annual
consumption through imports from other countries.
The highly restrictive sugar import system forces C&H to pay an
inflated price for raw sugar from both domestic and foreign suppliers.
Even more devastating, however, the quota system limits the amount of
sugar available to the refinery. Simply put, C&H has been unable to get
enough sugar to refine and it has been forced to close it doors on
several occasions.
The reduced production capacity has resulted in a severe downsizing
of the workforce. As recently as 1987, C&H employed over 1,400 people.
These are not minimum wage jobs we are talking about: the average
employee in the cane refining industry earns nearly $43,000 a year. In
1995, C&H had to eliminate 30 percent of its workforce just to remain
viable under the quota system mandated by the sugar program.
C&H now employees just over 500 people. These jobs and many others
around the nation are at risk if reforms are not made to the sugar
program.
The overly restrictive manner that the USDA administers the sugar
program has a number of other flaws. The sugar program's existing quota
system was put in place in 1982, using trading patterns dating as far
back as 1975. The system has remained largely unchanged over the past
17 years despite major alterations in the international sugar market.
As a result, the current import quota system assigns export rights to
countries that don't grow enough sugar to export or, in some cases, are
net importers themselves.
For example, the Philippines are granted one of the largest export
privileges under the sugar import quota system. It, however, does not
even grow enough sugar to meet it own domestics needs. What this means
is that the Philippines sell their homegrown sugar crop to the United
States at about 22 cents a pound. It then buys raw sugar on the world
market at around 5 cents a pound. This is ridiculous. We are in effect
giving money to foreign countries and forcing domestic consumers to pay
the price.
Beginning in September of 1994, I have asked the Administration on
eight separate occasions to reform the sugar program. Simply increasing
the amount of sugar available through the import program would provide
immediate relief to C&H and the other domestic refineries. To date, no
such permanent reform of the program has been made.
In addition to choking off the refineries' access to sugar, the US
sugar policy also has an adverse impact on US consumers. The General
Accounting Office has found that the program costs sugar users an
average of $1.4 billion annually. That equates to $3.8 million a day in
hidden sugar taxes.
The report found that ``Although the sugar program is considered a
no-net-cost program because the government does not make payments
directly to producers, it places the cost of the price supports on
sweetener users--consumers and manufacturers of sweetener-containing
products--who pay higher sugar and sweetener prices.''
What this means is that unlike traditional subsidy programs, the
funds do not come directly from the Treasury. Instead, the sugar
program places the cost consumers by restricting the supply of
available sugar which causes higher domestic market prices.
The legislation we are introducing will eliminate the sugar subsidy
program by 2002. This is a simple, straight-forward, and fair way to
end a program that has not worked for U.S. consumers or workers.
Congress has had opportunities in the past to kill this program and
we have not taken them. As a result, workers have lost jobs and
consumers have lost money. I am pleased to join my colleagues in saying
that enough is enough. It is time to end the sugar subsidy program once
and for all.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Bryan, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Kerry):
S. 1120. A bill to ensure that children enrolled in medicaid and
other Federal means-tested programs at highest risk for lead poisoning
are identified and treated, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
children's lead safe act
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Reed
to introduce legislation that will ensure that children enrolled in
federal health care programs receive screening and appropriate care for
lead poisoning. Our bill, the ``Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999''
would go a long way to eliminate childhood lead poisoning.
We know lead exposure is one of the most dangerous health hazards for
young children because their nervous systems are still developing. Lead
poisoning in children causes damage to the brain and nervous systems,
which leads to IQ loss, impaired physical development and behavioral
problems. High levels of exposure can cause comas, convulsions, and
even death.
Despite our success over the past twenty years to reduce lead
poisoning in the U.S., it continues to be the number one environmental
health threat to children, with nearly one million preschoolers
affected. Poor and minority children are most at-risk because of diet
and exposure to environmental hazards such as old housing. These
children frequently live in older housing which contains cracked or
chipped lead paint, where children primarily contract lead poisoning by
ingesting paint chips or lead dust.
Mr. President, 75 percent of At-Risk children are enrolled in federal
health care programs. Kids in these programs are five times more likely
to have high blood levels. In 1992, Congress instructed Health Care
Financing Adm. (HCFA) to require States to lead screen Medicaid
children under the age of two. Despite this, the GAO report shows that
mandatory screening isn't happening. Two-thirds of Medicaid children
have never been screened (as required). And only 20 percent of all
children in federal programs have been screened.
In fact, only half the States have screening policies consistent with
federal law. In my own state of New Jersey, the GAO report showed that
only 39 percent of Medicaid children have been screened. Despite
federal requirements, for whatever reason--insufficient outreach, lax
government oversight or parental ignorance, too many kids are not
getting screened.
The Children's Lead SAFE Act would address this problem by
establishing clear and consistent standards for screening and treatment
and by involving all relevant federal health programs in this battle.
Our legislation is modeled on the recommendations made by the GAO.
It requires all federal programs serving at-risk kids to be involved
in screening. It requires State Medicaid contracts to explicitly
require providers (HMO's) to follow federal rules for screening and
treatment. It expands Medicaid coverage to include treatment services
and environmental investigations to determine the source of the
poisoning. WIC centers (with 12 percent of the at-risk population) will
be required to assess whether a child has been screened and if they
have not to provide the necessary referral and follow-up to ensure that
screening occurs. Head Start facilities would similarly have the
responsibility for ensuring that their children are screened.
In addition, our legislation would improve data so we can identify
problems and use that information to educate
[[Page 10766]]
providers about the extent of the problem. CDC would develop
information-sharing guidelines for State and local health departments,
the labs that perform the test and federal programs. It would also
require each State to report on the percent of the Medicaid population
they are screening.
Finally, our legislation would make sure agencies have sufficient
resources to do screening by reimbursing WIC and Head Start for costs
they incur in screening. The legislation would also create a bonus
program whereby a state will receive a per child bonus for every child
it screens above 65 percent of its Medicaid population.
Mr. President, the health and safety of our children would be greatly
enhanced with the passage of this important legislation. Childhood lead
poisoning is easily preventable, and there is no excuse for not
properly screening and providing care to our kids. Our bill would
accomplish this and ensure adequate care. I ask my colleagues to join
me in recognizing this problem and supporting its solution.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with
Senator Torricelli that would ensure that children enrolled in federal
health care programs receive screening and appropriate follow-up care
for lead poisoning. Our bill, the ``Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999''
is an effort to eliminate a disease that continues to wreak
irreversible damage upon our nation's children.
Despite our success over the past twenty years to reduce lead
poisoning in the U.S., it continues to be the number one environmental
health threat to children, with nearly one million preschoolers
affected. This problem is particularly severe among African American
children who are at five times higher risk than white children and low-
income children are at eight times higher risk than children from well-
to-do families.
Minorities and low-income children are disproportionately affected by
lead poisoning because they frequently live in older housing which
contains cracked or chipped lead paint, where children primarily
contract lead poisoning by ingesting paint chips or lead dust.
If undetected, lead poisoning can cause brain and nervous system
damage, behavior and learning problems and possibly death.
Research shows that children with elevated blood-lead levels are
seven times more likely to drop out of high school and six times more
likely to have reading disabilities. It costs an average of $10,000
more a year to educate a lead-poisoned child. We will continue to pay
for our failure to eradicate this preventable tragedy through costs to
our education and health care system, and losses in lifetime earnings,
unless we act now to protect our children.
As I mentioned, this disease is entirely preventable, making its
prevalence among children all the more frustrating. We do have
solutions--parents who are aware, housing that is safe, and effective
screening and treatment for children who are at risk--to name a few.
Unfortunately, our current system is not adequately protecting our
children. In January 1999, the General Accounting Office reported that
children in federally funded health care programs such as Medicaid,
Women Infant and Child (WIC) and the Health Centers program, are five
times more likely to have elevated blood lead levels. The report also
found that despite longstanding federal requirements, two-thirds of the
children in these programs--more than 400,000--have never been screen
and, consequently, remain untreated.
Early detection of lead poisoning is critical to ensure that a child
is removed from the source of exposure and to determine whether other
children, such as siblings or friends, have also been exposed.
Screening is also important to determine whether a child's lead
poisoning is so severe as to require medical management to mitigate the
long-term health and developmental effects of lead.
Mr. President, our comprehensive legislation is designed to make sure
no child falls through the cracks, by establishing clear and consistent
standards for screening and treatment and by holding accountable those
who are responsible for carrying out the requirements. The legislation
supports improved management information systems to provide state- and
community-level information about the extent to which children have
elevated blood lead levels. It also expands and coordinates lead
screening and treatment activities through other federal programs
serving at-risk children such as WIC, Early Head Start, and the
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant programs. Finally, the bill ties
incentives for screening to additional federal funding for cleaning up
lead-contaminated houses.
Mr. President, we propose this legislation in an effort to rid
children of the detrimental effects of lead poisoning. Every child has
a right to screening and follow-up care. This bill will significantly
increase the number of poisoned children who are screened and treated
and help communities, parents, and physicians to take advantage of
every opportunity that they have to detect and treat lead poisoning
before its irreversible effects set in.
I ask by unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future
issue of the Record.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S 1121. A bill to amend the Clayton Act to enhance the authority of
the Attorney General to prevent certain mergers and acquisitions that
would unreasonably limit competition; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
ANTITRUST IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1999
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are living in a time of mega-mergers,
and they are coming from all directions. Chrysler and Daimler-Benz
automobile companies finalized their merger last year. In the computer
world, AOL completed its purchase of Netscape just a few months ago.
And in the largest corporate merger ever, Exxon Corporation announced
its plan to acquire Mobil at a price tag of over $75 billion, thus
creating the world's biggest private oil company, Exxon Mobil
Corporation.
While these mega-mergers have cut a swath across a number of
industries, the consolidations that continue to raise the most
questions in my mind are those that involve incumbent monopolies. For
example, the mergers among Regional Bell Operating Companies, which
continue to have a virtual stranglehold on the local telephone loop,
pose a great threat to healthy competition in the telecommunications
industry.
Indeed, incumbent telephone companies still control more than 99% of
the local residential telephone markets.
As I said last Congress, and it is still the case today, at my farm
in Middlesex and at my home here in Virginia, I have only one choice
for dial-tone and local telephone service. That ``choice'' is the Bell
operating company or no service at all.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed with the promise of
bringing competition to benefit American consumers. However, this
promise has yet to materialize.
Since passage of the Telecommunications Act, Southwestern Bell has
merged with PacTel into SBC Corporation, Bell Atlantic has merged into
NYNEX, and AT&T has acquired IBM's Global Network, just to name a few.
Just last week it was reported that U.S. West reached an agreement to
merge with the telecommunications company Global Crossing.
The U.S. Justice Department didn't spend years dividing up Ma Bell
just to see it grow back together again under the guise of the 1996
Telecommunications Act.
I am very concerned that the concentration of ownership in the
telecommunications industry is proceeding faster than the growth of
competition. Old monopolies are simply regrouping and getting bigger
and bigger.
Before all the pieces of Ma Bell are put together again, Congress
should revisit the Telecommunications Act. To
[[Page 10767]]
ensure competition between Bell Operating Companies and long distance
and other companies, as contemplated by passage of this law, we need
clearer guidelines and better incentives. Specifically, we should
ensure that Bell Operating Companies do not gain more concentrated
control over huge percentages of the telephone access lines of this
country through mergers, but only through robust competition.
Today I am reintroducing antitrust legislation that will bar future
mergers between Bell Operating Companies or GTE, unless the federal
requirements for opening the local loop to competition have been
satisfied in at least half of the access lines in each State.
The bill provides that a ``large local telephone company'' may not
merge with another large local telephone company unless the Attorney
General finds that the merger will promote competition for telephone
exchange services and exchange access services. Also, before a merger
can take place, the Federal Communications Commission must find that
each large local telephone company has for at least one-half of the
access lines in each State served by such carrier, of which as least
one-half are residential access lines, fully implemented the
requirements of sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934.
The bill requires that each large local telephone company that wishes
to merge with another must file an application with the Attorney
General and the FCC. A review of these applications will be subject to
the same time limits set under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976.
The bill also provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to
modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws of
the United States, or any authority of the Federal Communications
Commission, or any authority of the States with respect to mergers and
acquisitions of large local telephone companies.
The bill is effective on enactment and has no retroactive effect. It
is enforceable by the Attorney General in federal district courts.
This bill has the potential to make the 1996 Telecommunications Act
finally live up to some of its promises.
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. 1121
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 ``Antitrust Improvements Act
of 1999''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Act is to enhance the authority of the
Attorney General to prevent certain mergers and acquisitions
that would unreasonably limit competition in the
telecommunications industry in any case in which certain
Federal requirements that would enhance competition are not
met.
SEC. 3. RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 27 (as designated by section 2
of Public Law 96-493) as section 29; and
(2) by inserting after section 27 (as added by the Curt
Flood Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-297)) the following new
section:
``Sec. 28. (a) In this section, the term `large local
telephone company' means a local telephone company that, as
of the date of a proposed merger or acquisition covered by
this section, serves more than 5 percent of the telephone
access lines in the United States.
``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a large
local telephone company, including any affiliate of such a
company, shall not merge with or acquire a controlling
interest in another large local telephone company unless--
``(1) the Attorney General finds that the proposed merger
or acquisition will promote competition for telephone
exchange services and exchange access services; and
``(2) The Federal Communication Commission finds that each
large local telephone company that is a party to the proposed
merger or acquisition, with respect to at least \1/2\ of the
access lines in each State served by that company, of which
at least \1/2\ are residential access lines, has fully
implemented the requirements of sections 251 and 252 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251, 252), including
the regulations of the Commission and of the States that
implemented those requirements.
``(c) Not later than 10 days after the Attorney General
makes a finding described in subsection (b)(1), the Attorney
General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on the finding, including an
analysis of the effect of the merger or acquisition on
competition in the United States telecommunications industry.
``(d)(1) Each large local telephone company or affiliate of
a large local telephone company proposing the merge with or
acquire a controlling interest in another large local
telephone company shall file an application under this
section with respect to the merger or acquisition with both
the Attorney General and the Federal Communication Commission
on the same day.
``(2) The Attorney General and the Federal Communication
Commission shall issue a decision regarding the application
within the time period applicable to review of mergers under
section 7A.
``(e)(1) The district courts of the United States are
vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain any mergers
or acquisitions described in subsection (d) that are
inconsistent with a finding under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (b).
``(2) The Attorney General may institute proceedings in any
district court of the United States in the district in which
the defendant resides or is found or has an agent and that
court shall order such injunctive, and other relief, as may
be appropriate if--
``(A) the Attorney General makes a finding that a proposed
merger or acquisition covered by an application under
subsection (d) does not meet the condition specified in
subsection (b)(1); or
``(B) The Federal Communications Commission makes a finding
that 1 or more of the parties to the proposed merger or
acquisition do not meet the requirements specified in
subsection (b)(2).''.
SEC. 4 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES.
(1) In General.--Nothing in this Act or the amendment made
by section 3(2) shall be construed to modify, impair, or
supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws, or any
authority of the Federal Communication Commission under the
Communication Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et. seq.), with
respect to mergers, acquisitions, and affiliations of large
local exchange carriers.
(b) Antitrust Laws Defined.--In this section, the term
``antitrust laws'' has the meaning given that term in the
first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12).
SEC 5. APPLICABILITY
This Act and the amendment made by section 3(2) shall apply
to a merger or acquisition of a controlling interest of a
large local telephone company (as that term is defined in
section 27 of the Clayton Act, as added by such section
3(2)), occurring on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Abraham, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 1123. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
improve the safety of imported food, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Imported Food Safety Improvement Act
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, food safety is a serious and
growing public health concern. According to the General Accounting
Office (GAO), as many as 81 million cases of foodborne illness and
9,000 related deaths occur in the U.S. every year. Most at risk are the
very old, the very young, and the very ill. While these statistics
refer to all cases of foodborne illness, recent outbreaks demonstrate
that tainted imported foods have increased the incidence of illness and
have exposed American consumers to new pathogens.
The volume of imported foods continues to grow, yet our current food
import system is riddled with holes which allow unsafe food to
penetrate our borders. Contaminated food imports have caused illnesses
rarely seen in the United States and can be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for consumers to detect.
I first became interested in this issue when I learned that fruit
from Mexico and Guatemala was associated with three multi-state
outbreaks of foodborne illesses--one of hepatitis A and two of
Cyclospora infection--that sickened thousands of Americans. These
outbreaks included victims in my home State of Maine.
In my State's grocery stores, as in any typical American grocery
store, the fresh fruit and vegetables that are available during the
winter months come from many other countries. In many ways, imported
food is a blessing for American consumers. Fruit and vegetables that
would normally be unavailable in our local grocery stores
[[Page 10768]]
during the winter months are now available all year long, making it
easier and more enjoyable to eat the five servings of fruit and
vegetables a day the National Cancer Institute recommends. But, it's
only a blessing if the food is safe. Even one serving of tainted food
can cause sickness and even death.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that the increasing
importation of produce is a trend that is expected to continue. In
1996, the U.S. imported $7.2 billion worth of fruit and vegetables from
at least 90 different countries, a dramatic increase from the 1990
level of $4.8 billion. Total food imports have increased from 1.1
million shipments in 1992 to 2.7 million in 1997. And, of all the fish
and shellfish consumed in the U.S., more than half is imported.
Yet, the FDA annually inspects less than 2 percent of the 2.7 million
shipments of food that arrive in the U.S. And of the small number of
shipments that are inspected, only about a third are tested for some of
the most significant pathogens. What's more, even when the FDA does
catch contaminated food, the system often fails to dispose of it
adequately. Indeed, according to one survey conducted by the Customs
Service in 1997, as many as 70 percent of the imported food shipments
the FDA ordered re-exported or destroyed may have ended up in U.S.
commerce any way. Unscrupulous food importers can easily circumvent the
inspection system.
Mr. President, to respond to these problems, I am introducing the
Imported Food Safety Improvement Act, with Senator Frist, Senator
Abraham, Senator Coverdell, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Snowe as
original cosponsors.
Our legislation is an effort designed to strengthen the existing food
import system to help ensure that unsafe food does not enter the United
States. Our goal is to reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses and
to ensure that American families can enjoy a variety of foods year-
round without the risk of illness when they sit down to the dinner
table.
This legislation is the product of an extensive investigation by the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. During the
105th Congress, the Subcommittee undertook a 16-month, in-depth
investigation into the safety of food imports. During five days of
Subcommittee hearings, we heard testimony from 29 witnesses, including
scientists, industry and consumer representatives, government
officials, the General Accounting Office, and two persons with first-
hand knowledge of the seamier side of the imported food industry, a
convicted Customs broker and a convicted former FDA inspector. As a
result of the compelling testimony that we heard, I have worked with my
colleagues in drafting the legislation we introduce today--the Imported
Food Safety Improvement Act--to address a broad array of problems
uncovered during the Subcommittee's investigation.
My Subcommittee's investigation has revealed much about the food we
import into this country and the government's flawed food safety net.
Let me briefly recount some of our findings which make it clear why
this legislation is so urgently needed:
In the worlds of the GAO, ``federal efforts to ensure the safety of
imported food are inconsistent and unreliable.'' Federal agencies have
not effectively targeted their resources on imported foods posing the
greatest risks;
Weaknesses in FDA import controls, specifically the ability of
importers to control the food shipments from the port to the point of
distribution, makes the system vulnerable to fraud and deception;
The bonds required to be posted by importers who violate food safety
laws are so low that they are considered by some unscrupulous importers
at the cost of doing business;
Maintaining the food safety net for imported food is an increasingly
complex task, made more complicated by previously unknown foodborne
pathogens, like Cyclospora, that are difficult to detect;
Because some imported food can be contaminated by organisms that
cannot be detected by visual inspection or laboratory tests, placing
additional federal inspectors at ports-of-entry alone will not protect
Americans from unsafe food imports; and
Since contamination of imported food can occur at many different
places from the farm to the table, the ability to trace-back outbreaks
of foodborne illnesses to the source of contamination is a complex
process that requires a more coordinated effort among the federal,
state, and local agencies as well as improved education for health care
providers so that they can better recognize and treat foodborne
illnesses.
The testimony that I heard during my Subcommittee's hearings was
troubling. The United States Customs Service told us of one
particularly egregious situation that I would like to share. It
involves contaminated fish and illustrates the challenges facing
federal regulators who are charged with ensuring the safety of our
nation's food supply.
In 1996, federal inspectors along our border with Mexico opened a
shipment of seafood destined for sales to restaurants in Los Angeles.
The shipment was dangerously tainted with life-threatening
contaminants, including botulism, Salmonella, and just plain filth.
Much to the surprise of the inspectors, this shipment of frozen fish
had been inspected before by federal authorities. Alarmingly, in fact,
it had arrived at our border two years before, and had been rejected by
the FDA as unfit for consumption. Its importers then held this rotten
shipment for two years before attempting to bring it into the country
again, by a different route.
The inspectors only narrowly prevented this poisoned fish from
reaching American plates. And what happened to the importer who tried
to sell this deadly food to American consumers? In effect, nothing. He
was placed on probation and asked to perform 50 hours of community
service.
I suppose we should be thankful that the perpetrators were caught and
held responsible. After all, the unsafe food might have escaped
detection and reached our tables. But it worries me that the importer
essentially received a slap on the wrist. I believe that forfeiting the
small amount of money currently required for the Custom's bond, which
importers now consider no more than a ``cost of doing business,'' does
little to deter unscrupulous importers from trying to slip tainted fish
that is two years old past overworked Customs agents.
All too often, unscrupulous importers are never discovered. The
General Accounting Office testified about a special operation known as
Operation Bad Apple, conducted by Customs at the Port of San Francisco
in 1997, identified 23 weaknesses in the controls over FDA-regulated
imported food. For example, under current law, importers retain custody
of their shipments from the time they arrive at the border. The
importers must also put up a bond and agree to ``redeliver'' the
shipment to Customs, for reexport or destruction, if ordered to do so
or forfeit the bond. However, Operation Bad Apple revealed a very
disturbing fact. Of the shipments found to violate U.S. standards,
thereby requiring redelivery to Customs for destruction or re-export, a
full 40 percent were never returned. The Customs Service believes an
additional 30 percent of shipments that the FDA required to be returned
contained good products that the importers had substituted for the
original bad products. Customs further believes that the violative
products were on their way to the marketplace. This means that a total
of 70 percent of products ordered returned, because they were unsafe,
presumably entered into U.S. commerce.
Weak import controls make our system all too easy to circumvent.
After all, FDA only physically inspects about 17 of every 1,000 food
shipments and, of the food inspected, only about a third is actually
tested. That is why we have worked with the FDA, the Customs Service,
and the Centers for Disease
[[Page 10769]]
Control (CDC) to ensure that our legislation addresses many of the
issues explored over the course of the Subcommittee's investigation and
hearings. Let me describe what this bill is designed to accomplish.
Our legislation will fill the existing gaps in the food import system
and provide the FDA with certain stronger authority to protect American
consumers against tainted food imports. First and foremost, this bill
gives the FDA the authority to stop such food from entering our
country. This authority allows the FDA to deny the entry of imported
food that has caused repeated outbreaks of foodborne illnesses,
presents a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health
consequences, and is likely without systemic changes to cause disease
again.
Second, this legislation includes the authority for the FDA to
require secure storage of shipments offered by repeat offenders prior
to their release into commerce, to prohibit the practice of ``port-
shopping,'' and to mark boxes containing violative foods as ``U.S.--
Refused Entry.'' This latter authority, which would allow the FDA to
clearly mark boxes containing contaminated foods, is currently used
with success by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and has been
requested specifically by the FDA. Our bill also will require the
destruction of certain imported foods that cannot be adequately
reconditioned to ensure safety. Third, the legislation directs the FDA
to develop criteria for use by private laboratories used to collect and
analyze samples of food offered for import. This will ensure the
integrity of the testing process.
Fourth, the bill will give ``teeth'' to the current food import
system by establishing two strong deterrents--the threats of high bonds
and of debarment--for unscrupulous importers who repeatedly violate
U.S. law. No longer will the industry's ``bad actors'' be able to
profit from endangering the health of American consumers.
Finally, our bill will authorize the CDC to award grants to state and
local public health agencies to strengthen the public health
infrastructure by updating essential items such as laboratory and
electronic-reporting equipment. Grants will also be available for
universities to develop new and improved tests to detect pathogens and
for professional schools and professional societies to develop programs
to increase the awareness of foodborne illness among healthcare
providers and the public.
We believe the measures provided for in this legislation will help to
curtail the risks that unsafe food imports currently pose to our
citizens, particularly our elderly, our children and our sick. I
appreciate the advice and input we have received from scientists,
industry and consumer groups, and the FDA, the CDC and the U.S. Customs
Service in drafting this legislation.
We are truly fortunate that the American food supply is one of the
safest in the world. But, our system for safeguarding our people from
tainted food imports is flawed and poses needless risks of serious
foodborne illnesses. I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to
provide our federal agencies with the direction, authority, and
resources necessary to keep unsafe food out of the United States and
off American dinner tables.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bond,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Robb, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Torricelli,
Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Edwards).
S.J. Res. S. 25. A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress
with respect to the court-marital conviction of the late Rear Admiral
Charles Butler McVay III, and calling upon the President to award a
Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S.
Indianapolis; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to share with
my colleagues a brief story from the closing days of World War II, the
war in the Pacific.
It is a harrowing story, with many elements. Bad timing, bad weather.
Heroism and fortitude. Negligence and shame. Bad luck. Above all, it is
the story of some very special men whose will to survive shines like a
beacon decades later.
I should point out that it is because of the efforts of a 13 year old
boy in Florida that I introduce this bill today. Hunter Scott, working
for nearly two years on what started as a history project, compiled a
mountain of clippings, letters, and interviews that ultimately led
Congressman Joe Scarborough to introduce this bill in the House, and
for me to do so in the Senate. Hunter, on behalf of the survivors of
the U.S.S. Indianapolis, the family of Captain McVay, and your country,
I thank you for your courageous efforts.
Mr. President, we have the opportunity to redeem the reputation of a
wronged man, and salute the indomitable will of a courageous crew. I
had the distinct honor and priviledge of hosting two distinguished
members of that courageous crew just this morning; Richard Paroubek, of
Williamsburg, VA, who was a Yeoman 1st Class, and Woodie James of Salt
Lake City, UT, who was a Coxswain. The bill I introduce today will
honor these two men, and their fellow shipmates of the U.S.S.
Indianapolis, and redeem their Captain, Charles McVay.
A 1920 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Charles Butler McVay III
was a career naval officer with an exemplary record, including
participation in the landings in North Africa and award of the Silver
Star for courage under fire earned during the Soloman Islands campaign.
Before taking command of the Indianapolis in November 1944, Captain
McVay was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Combined
Chiefs of Staff in Washington, the Allies' highest intelligence unit.
Captain McVay led the ship through the invasion of Iwo Jima, then the
bombardment of Okinawa in the spring of 1945 during which Indianapolis'
antiaircraft guns shot down seven enemy planes before the ship was
severely damaged. McVay returned the ship safely to Mare Island in
California for repairs.
In 1945, the Indianapolis delivered the world's first operational
atomic bomb to the island of Tinian, which would later be dropped on
Hiroshima by the Enola Gay on August 6. After delivering its fateful
cargo, the Indianapolis then reported to the naval station at Guam for
further orders. She was ordered to join the battleship U.S.S. Idaho in
the Philippines to prepare for the invasion of Japan.
It was at Guam that the series of events ultimately leading to the
sinking of the Indianapolis began to unfold. Hostilities in this part
of the Pacific had long since ceased. The Japanese surface fleet was no
longer considered a likely threat, and attention instead had turned
1,000 miles to the north where preparations were underway for the
invasion of the Japanese mainland. These conditions led to a relaxed
state of alert on the part of those who decided to send the
Indianapolis across the Philippine Sea unescorted, and consequently,
Captain McVay's orders to ``zigzag at his discretion.'' Zigzagging is a
naval maneuver used to avoid torpedo attack, generally considered most
effective once the torpedoes have been launched.
The Indianapolis, unescorted, departed Guam for the Philippines on
July 28. Just after midnight on 30 July 1945, midway between Guam and
the Leyte Gulf, she was hit by two torpedoes fired by the ``I-58,'' a
Japanese submarine. The first blew away the bow, the second struck near
mid-ship on the starboard side adjacent to a fuel tank and a powder
magazine. The resulting explosion split the ship in two.
Of the 1,196 men aboard, about 900 escaped the sinking ship and made
it into the water in the twelve minutes before she sank. Few life rafts
were released. Shark attacks began at sunrise on the first day, and
continued until the men were physically removed from the water, almost
five days later.
Shortly after 11:00 A.M. of the fourth day, the survivors were
accidentally discovered by an American bomber on routine antisubmarine
patrol. A patrolling seaplane was dispatched to lend
[[Page 10770]]
assistance and report. En route to the scene the pilot overflew the
destroyer U.S.S. Cecil Doyle ( DD-368), and alerted her captain to the
emergency. The captain of the Doyle, on his own authority, decided to
divert to the scene.
Arriving hours ahead of the Doyle, the seaplane's crew began dropping
rubber rafts and supplies. While doing so, they observed men being
attacked by sharks. Disregarding standing orders not to land at sea,
the plane landed and began taxiing to pick up the stragglers and lone
swimmers who were at greatest risk of shark attack.
As darkness fell, the crew of the seaplane waited for help to arrive,
all the while continuing to seek out and pull nearly dead men from the
water. When the plane's fuselage was full, survivors were tied to the
wing with parachute cord. The plane's crew rescued 56 men that day.
The Cecil Doyle was the first vessel on the scene, and began taking
survivors aboard. Disregarding the safety of his own vessel, the
Doyle's captain pointed his largest searchlight into the night sky to
serve as a beacon for other rescue vessels. This beacon was the first
indication to the survivors that their prayers had been answered. Help
had at last arrived.
Of the 900 who made it into the water only 317 remained alive. After
almost five days of constant shark attacks, starvation, terrible
thirst, and suffering from exposure and their wounds, the men of the
Indianapolis were at last rescued from the sea.
Curiously, the Navy withheld the news of the sunken ship from the
American people for two weeks, until the day the Japanese surrendered
on August 15, 1945, thus insuring minimum press coverage for the story
of the Indianapolis' loss.
Also suspicious, conceding that they were ``starting the proceedings
without having available all the necessary data,'' less than two weeks
after the sinking of the Indianapolis, before the sinking of the ship
had even been announced to the public, the Navy opened an official
board of inquiry to investigate Captain McVay and his actions. The
board recommended a general court-martial for McVay.
Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of Pacific Command, did not
agree--he wrote the Navy's Judge Advocate General that at worst McVay
was guilty of an error in judgment, but not gross negligence worthy of
court-martial. Nimitz recommended a letter of reprimand.
Overriding both Nimitz and Admiral Raymond Spruance who commanded the
Fifth Fleet, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal and Admiral Ernest
King, Chief of Naval Operations, directed that court-martial
proceedings against Captain McVay proceed.
Captain McVay was notified of the pending court-martial, but not told
what specific charges would be brought against him. The reason was
simple. The Navy had not yet decided what to charge him with. Four days
before the trial began they did decide on two charges: the first,
failing to issue orders to abandon ship in a timely fashion; and the
second, hazarding his vessel by failing to zigzag during good
visibility.
It's difficult to understand why the Navy brought the first charge
against McVay. Explosions from the torpedo attacks had knocked out the
ship's communications system, making it impossible to give an abandon
ship order to the crew except by word of mouth, which McVay had done.
He was ultimately found not guilty on this count.
That left the second charge of failing to zigzag. Perhaps the most
egregious aspect however, was in the phrasing of the charge itself. The
phrase was ``during good visibility.'' According to all accounts of the
survivors, including written accounts only recently declassified and
not made available to McVay's defense at the trial, the visibility that
night was severely limited with heavy cloud cover. This is pertinent
for two reasons. First, no Navy directives in force at that time or
since recommended, much less ordered, zigzagging at night in poor
visibility. Secondly, as Admiral Nimitz pointed out, the rule requiring
zigzagging would not have applied in any event, since McVay's orders
gave him discretion on that matter and thus took precedence over all
other orders. Thus, when he stopped zigzagging, he was simply
exercising his command authority in accordance with Navy directives.
Unbelievably, this point was never made by McVay's defense counsel
during the subsequent court-martial.
Captain McVay was ultimately found guilty on the charge of failing to
zigzag, and was discharged from the Navy with a ruined career. In 1946,
at the specific request of Admiral Nimitz who had become Chief of Naval
Operations, Secretary Forrestal, in a partial admission of injustice,
remitted McVay's sentence and restored him to duty. But, Captain
McVay's court-martial, and personal culpability for the sinking of the
Indianapolis continued to stain his Navy records. The stigma of his
conviction remained with him always, and he ultimately took his own
life in 1968. To this day Captain McVay is recorded in history as
negligent in the deaths of 870 sailors.
We need to restore the reputation of this honorable officer. In the
decades since World War II, the crew of the Indianapolis has worked
tirelessly in defending their Captain, and trying to ensure that his
memory is properly honored. It is at the specific request of the
survivors of the U.S.S. Indianapolis that I introduce this resolution.
Since McVay's court-martial, a number of factors, including once
classified documents not made available to McVay's defense, have
surfaced raising significant questions about the justice of the
conviction.
Although naval authorities at Guam knew that on July 24, four days
before the Indianapolis departed for Leyte, the destroyer escort U.S.S.
Underhill had been sunk by a Japanese submarine within range of the
Indianapolis' path, McVay was not told.
Although a code-breaking system called ULTRA had alerted naval
intelligence that a Japanese submarine (the I-58, which ultimately sank
the Indianapolis) was operating in his path, McVay was not told.
Classified as top secret until the early 1990s, this intelligence--and
the fact it was withheld from McVay before he sailed from Guam--was
suppressed during his court-martial.
Although the routing officer at Guam was aware of the ULTRA
intelligence report, he said a destroyer escort for the Indianapolis
was ``not necessary'' and, unbelievably, testified at McVay's court-
martial that the risk of submarine attack along the Indianapolis' route
``was very slight''.
Although McVay was told of ``submarine sightings'' along his path, he
was told none had been confirmed. Such sightings were commonplace
throughout the war and were generally ignored by Navy commanders unless
confirmed. Thus, the Indianapolis set sail for Leyte on July 26, 1945,
sent into harm's way with its captain unaware of dangers which shore-
based naval personnel know were in his path.
The U.S.S. Indianapolis was not equipped with submarine detection
equipment, and therefore Captain McVay requested a destroyer escort.
Although no capital ship without submarine detection devices had sailed
between Guam and the Philippines without a destroyer escort throughout
all of World War II, McVay's request for such an escort was denied.
The Navy failed to notice when the ship did not show up in port in
the Philippines. U.S. authorities intercepted a message from the I-58
to its headquarters in Japan informing them that it had sunk the U.S.S.
Indianapolis. This message was ignored and the Navy did not initiate a
search. The Indianapolis transmitted three distress calls before it
sank, and one was received at the naval base in the Philippines. Again,
no search was initiated and no effort was made to locate any survivors.
It was not until four days after the ship had sunk, when a bomber
inadvertently spotted sailors being eaten by sharks in the water below,
that a search party was dispatched.
Although 700 navy ships were lost in combat in World War II, McVay
was the only captain to be court-martialed as the result of a sunken
ship.
Captain McVay was denied both his first choice of defense counsel and
a
[[Page 10771]]
delay to develop his defense. His counsel, a line officer with no trial
experience, had only four days to prepare his case.
Incredibly, the Navy brought Mochitura Hashimoto, the commander of
the Japanese I-58 submarine that sunk the Indianapolis to testify at
the court-martial. Hashimoto testified that just after midnight the
clouds cleared long enough to see and fire upon the Indianapolis. He
also implied in pretrial statements that zigzagging would not have
saved the Indianapolis because of his clear view, but this point was
not raised by McVay's defense during the trial itself.
Another witness in the trial, veteran Navy submariner Glynn Donaho, a
four-time Navy Cross winner was asked by McVay's defense counsel
whether ``it would have been more or less difficult for you to attain
the proper firing position'' if the Indianapolis had been zigzagging
under the conditions which existed that night. His answer was, ``No,
not as long as I could see the target.'' This testimony was either
deliberately ignored by, or passed over the heads of, the court-martial
board, and it was not pursued further by McVay's defense.
Many of the survivors of the Indianapolis believe that a decision to
convict McVay was made before his court-martial began. They are
convinced McVay was made a scapegoat to hide the mistakes of others.
McVay was court-martialed and convicted of ``hazarding his ship by
failing to zigzag'' despite overwhelming evidence that the Navy itself
had placed the ship in harm's way, despite testimony from the Japanese
submarine commander that zigzagging would have made no difference,
despite the fact that although 700 Navy ships were lost in combat in
World War II McVay was the only captain to be court-martialed, and
despite the fact the Navy did not notice when the Indianapolis failed
to arrive on schedule, thus costing hundreds of lives unnecessarily and
creating the greatest sea disaster in the history of the United States
Navy.
The resolution I am introducing corrects a 54 year old injustice,
restores the honorable name of a decorated Navy combat veteran, and
honors the wishes of his loyal and faithful crew. It will also honor
the crew of the Indianapolis for their courage in surviving this awful
tragedy.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I am proud to
offer it on behalf of Captain McVay and the wonderful and honorable men
of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, two of whom are sitting with us in the
gallery today, Mr. President.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will certainly yield to the Senator
from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to first commend the Senator from New
Hampshire. I was visited in my office by a gentleman named Michael
Kuryla, Jr., of Poplar Grove, IL, one of the survivors of the U.S.S.
Indianapolis. He recounted to me in detail what happened when that ship
went down. As he talked about being in the ocean for days, not knowing
whether they would be rescued, watching his shipmates who were
literally dying around him and being devoured by sharks, wondering if
they would ever be rescued, tears came to his eyes. More than 50 years
after, tears came to his eyes. He said it wasn't fair, what they did to
Captain McVay; to court-martial him was wrong. He asked me for my help,
if I would join the Senator from New Hampshire on this resolution, and
I am happy to do so.
I think justice cries out that we agree to this resolution; that
Captain McVay, who was singled out, out of all the captains of the
fleet, to be court-martialed under these circumstances is just unfair.
The men who served under him, those whose lives were under his care and
those who survived this worst sea disaster in U.S. naval history--they
have come forward. They have asked us to make sure that history
properly records the contribution Captain McVay made to his country.
I am happy to join in this resolution. I hope other Members of the
Senate, hearing this debate and reading this resolution, will cosponsor
it as well and that we can close the right way this chapter in American
naval history.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
I ask unanimous consent that the roster of the final crew of the
U.S.S. Indianapolis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Final Crew of the U.S.S. ``Indianapolis'' (CA-35)
Crew and Officers
ABBOTT, George S., S1. ACOSTA, Charles M., MM3. ADAMS, Leo
H., S1*. ADAMS, Pat L., S2. ADORANTE, Dante W, S2. AKINES,
William R., S2*. ALBRIGHT, Charles E., Jr., Cox. ALLARD,
Vincent J., QM3*. ALLEN, Paul F., S1. ALLMARAS, Harold D.,
F2. ALTSCHULER, Allan H., S2*. ALVEY, Edward W., Jr., AerM2.
AMICK, Homer I., S2. ANDERSEN, Lawrence J., SK2. ANDERSON,
Erick T., S2*. ANDERSON, Leonard O., MM3. ANDERSON, Sam G.,
S2. ANDERSON, Vincent U., BMI. ANDERSON, Richard L., F2.
ANDREWS, William R., S2*. ANNIS, James B. Jr., CEMA. ANTHONY,
Harold R., PHM3. ANTONIE, Charles J., F2. ANUNTI, John M.,
M2*. ARMENTA, Lorenzo, SC2. ARMISTEAD, John H., S2*. ARNOLD,
Carl L., AMM3. ASHFORD, Chester W., WT2. ASHFORD, John T.
Jr., RT3*. ATKINSON, J.P., COX. AULL, Joseph H., S2. AULT,
William F., S2*. AYOTT'E, Lester J., S2. BACKUS, Thomas H.,
LT. (jg). BAKER, Daniel A., S2. BAKER, Frederick H., S2.
BAKER, William M. Jr., EM1. BALDRIDGE, Clovis R. EM2*. BALL,
Emmet E., S2. BALLARD, Courtney J., SSM3. BARENTHIN, Leonard
W. S2. BARKER, Robert C. Jr., RT1. BARKSDALE, Thomas L., FC3.
BARNES, Paul C., F2. BARNES, Willard M., MM1. BARRA, Raymond
J., CGMA. BARRETT, James B., S2. BARRY, Charles., LT. (jg).
BARTO, Lloyd P., S1*. BARTON, George S., Y3. BATEMAN, Bernard
B., F2*. BATENHORST, Wilfred J., MM3. BATSON, Eugene C., S2.
BATTEN, Robert E., S1. BATTS, Edward D., STM1. BEANE, James
A., F2*. BEATY, Donald L., S1*. BECKER, Myron M., WT2.
BEDDINGTON, Charles E., S1. BEDSTED, Leo A., F1. BEISTER,
Richard J., WT3. BELCHER, James R., S1*. BELL, Maurice G.,
S1*. BENNETT, Dean R., HA1. BENNETT, Ernest F., B3. BENNETT,
Toney W., ST3. BENNING, Harry, S1. BENTON, Clarence U.,
CFCP*. BERNACIL, Concepcion P. FC3*. BERRY, Joseph, Jr.,
STM1. BERRY, William H., ST3. BEUKEMA, Kenneth J., S2.
BEUSCHLEIN, Joseph C., S2. BIDDISON, Charles L., S1.
BILLINGS, Robert B., ENS. BILLINOSLEY, Robert F., GM3*.
BILZ, Robert E., S2. BISHOP, Arthur, Jr., S2. BITONTI, Louis
P., S1*. BLACKWELL, Fermon M. SSML3. BLANTHORN, Bryan, S1*.
BLUM, Donald J., ENS. BOEGE, Raymond R., S2. BOGAN, Jack R.,
RM1. BOLLINGER, Richard H., S1. BOOTH, Sherman C., S1*.
BORTON, Herheit E., SC2. BOSS, Norbert G., S2. BOTT, Wilbur
M., S2. BOWLES, Eldridge W. S1. BOWMAN, Charles E., CTC.
BOYD, Troy H., GM3. BRADLEY, William H., S2. BRAKE, John Jr.,
S2. BRANDT, Russell L., F2*. BRAUN, Neal F., S2. BRAY, Harold
J. Jr., S2*. BRICE, R.V., S2. BRIDGE, Wayne A., S2. BRIGHT,
Chester L., S2. BRILEY, Harold V., MAM3. BROOKS, Ulysess R.,
CWTA. BROPHY, Thomas D'Arcy Jr., ENS. BROWN, Edward A., WT3.
BROWN, Edward J., S1*. BRUCE, Russell W., S2. BRULE, Maurice
J., S2. BRUNDIGE, Robert H., S1*. BRUNEAU, Charles A., GM3.
BUCKETT, Victor R., Y2*. BUDISH, David, S2. BULLARD, John K.,
S1*. BUNAI, Robert P., SM1*. BUNN, Horace G., S2. BURDORF,
Wilbert J., COX*. BURKHARTSMEIER, Anton T., S1. BURKHOLTZ,
Frank Jr., EM3.
BURLESON, Martin L., S1. BURRS, John W., S1. BURT, William
George A., QM3. BURTON, Curtis H., S1*. BUSHONG, John R.,
GM3. CADWALLADER, John J., RT3. CAIN, Alfred B., RT3. CAIRO,
William G., BUG1. CALL, James E., RM3. CAMERON, John W, GM2.
CAMP, Garrison, STM2. CAMPANA, Paul, RDM3. CAMPBELL, Hamer E.
Jr., GM3*. CAMPBELL, Louis D., AOM3*. CAMPBELL, Wayland D.,
SF3. CANDALINO, Paul L., LT.(jg). CANTRELL, Billy G., F2.
CARNELL, Lois W., S2. CARPENTER, Willard A., SM3. CARR, Harry
L., S2. CARROLL, Gregory K., S1. CARROLL, Rachel W., COX.
CARSON, Clifford, F1. CARSTENSEN, Richard, S2. CARTER, Grover
C., S1*. CARTER, Lindsey L., S2*. CARTER, Lloyd G., COX*.
CARVER, Grover C., S1*. CASSIDY, John C., S1*. CASTALDO,
Patrick P., GM2. CASTIAUX, Ray V., S2. CASTO, William H., S1.
CAVIL, Robert R., MM2. CAVITT, Clinton C., WT3. CELAYA,
Adolfo V., F2*. CENTAZZO, Frank J., SM3*. CHAMNESS, John D.,
S2*. CHANDLER, Lloyd N., S2. CHART, Joseph, EM3. CHRISTIAN,
Lewis E. Jr., WO. CLARK, Eugene, CK3. CLARK, Orsen N., S2*.
CLEMENTS, Harold P., S2. CLINTON, George W., S1*. CLINTON,
Leland J., LT. (jg). COBB, William L., MOMM3. COLE, Walter
H., CRMA. COLEMAN, Cedric F., LCFR. COLEMAN, Robert E., F2*.
COLLIER, Charles R., RM2*. COLLINS, James, STM1. COLVIN,
Frankie
[[Page 10772]]
L., SSMT2. CONDON, Barna T., RDM1. CONNELLY, David F., ENS.
CONRAD, James P., EM3. CONSER, Donald L., SC2. CONSIGLIO,
Joseph W., FC2. CONWAY, Thomas M., Rev., LT. COOK, Floyd E.,
SF3. COOPER, Dale, Jr., F2. COPELAND, Willard J., S2.
COSTNER, Homer J., COX*. COUNTRYMAN, Robert E., S2. COWEN,
Donald R., FC3*. COX, Alford E., GM3. COX, Loel Dene, S2*.
CRABB, Donald C., RM2. CRANE, Granville S. Jr., MM2*. CREWS,
Hugh C., LT. (jg). CRITES, Orval D., WT1. CROUCH, Edwin M.,
CAPT. (Passenger). CRUM, Charles J., S2. CRUZ, Jose S., CCKA.
CURTIS, Erwin E., CTCP. DAGENBART, Charles R. Jr., PHM2.
DALE, Elwood R., F1. DANIEL, Harold W., CBMA*. DANIELLO,
Anthony G., S1. DAVIS, James C. RM3. DAVIS, Kenneth G., F1.
DAVIS, Stanley G., LT. (jg). DAVIS, Thomas E., SM2. DAY,
Richard R. Jr., S2. DEAN, John T. Jr., S2. DeBERNARDI, Louie,
BMI*.
DeFOOR, Walton, RDM3. DeMARS, Edgar J., CBMA. DeMENT, Dayle
P., S1. DENNY, Lloyd, Jr., S2. DEWING, Ralph O., FC3*.
DIMOND, John N., S2. DIZELSKE, William B., MM2*. DOLLINS,
Paul, RM2. DONALD, Lyle H., EM1. DONEY, William Junior, F2.
DONNER, Clarence W., RT3*. DORMAN, William B., S1. DORNETTO,
Frank P, WT1. DOSS, James M., S2. DOUCETTE, Ronald O., S2.
DOUGLAS, Gene D., F2*. DOVE, Bassil R., SKD2. DOWDY, Lowell
S., CWO. DRANE, James A., GM2. DRAYTON, William H., EM2*.
DRISCOLL, David L., LT. (jg). DRONET, Joseph E.J., S2*.
DRUMMOND, James J., F2. DRURY, Richard E., S2. DRYDEN,
William H., MM1*. DUFRAINE, Delbert E., S1. DUNBAR, Jess L.,
F2. DURAND, Ralph J., Jr., S2. DYCUS, Donald, S2. EAKINS,
Morris B., F2. EAMES, Paul H. Jr., ENS. EASTMAN, Chester S.,
S2. ECK, Harold A., S2*. EDDINGER, John W, S1. EDDY, Richard
L., RM3. EDWARDS, Alwyn C., F2. EDWARDS, Roland J., BM1.
E'GOLF, Harold W., S2. ELLIOTT, Kenneth A., S1. ELLIOTT,
Harry W., S2. EMERY, William F., S1*. EMSLEY, William J., S1.
ENGELSMAN, Ralph, S2*. EPPERSON, Ewell, S2*.
EPPERSON, George L., S1. ERICKSON, Theodore M., S2*. ERNST,
Robert C., F2. ERWIN, Louis H., COX*. ETHIER, Eugene E.,
EM3*. EUBANKS, James H., S1. EVANS, Arthur J., PHM2. EVANS,
Claudus, GM3*. EVERETT, Charles N., EM2. EVERS, Lawrence L.,
CMMA. EYET, Donald A., S1. FANTASIA, Frank A., F2. FARBER,
Sheldon L., S2. FARLEY, James W., S1. FARMER, Archie C.,
Cox*. FARRIS, Eugene F., S1*. FAST HORSE, Vincent, S2.
FEAKES, Fred A., AOMI*. FEDORSKI, Nicholas W., S1*. FEENEY,
Paul R., S2. FELTS, Donald J., BMI*. FERGUSON, Albert E.,
CMMA*. FERGUSON, Russel M., RT3. FIGGINS, Harley D., WT2.
FIRESTONE, Kenneth F., FC2. FIRMIN, John A. H., S2. FITTING,
Johnny W., GM1*. FLATEN, Harold J., WT2*. FELISCHAUER, Donald
W., S1. FLESHMAN, Vern L., S2. FLYNN, James M., Jr., S1.
FLYNN, Joseph A., CDR. FOELL, Cecil D., ENS. FORTIN, Verlin
L., WT3*. FOSTER, Verne E., F2*. FOX, William H. Jr., F2*.
FRANCOIS, Norbert E., F1*. FRANK, Rudolph A., S2. FRANKLIN,
Jack R., RDM3. FREEZE, Howard B., LT. (jg). FRENCH, Douglas
O., FC3. FRENCH, Jimmy Junior, QM3. FRITZ, Leonard A., MM3.
FRONTINO, Vincent F., MOMM3. FRORATH, Donald H., S2. FUCHS,
Herman F., CWO. FULLER, Arnold A., F2. FULTON, William C.,
CRMA. FUNKHOUSER, Rober M., ART2*. GABRILLO, Juan, S2*.
GAITHER, Forest M., FC2. GALANTE, Angelo., S2*. GALBRAITH,
Norman S., MM2*. GARDNER, Roscoe W., F2*. GARDNER, Russel T.,
F2. GARNER, Glenn R., MM2. GAUSE, Robert P., QM1*. GAUSE,
Rubin C., Jr., ENS. GEMZA, Rudolph A., FC3*. GEORGE, Gabriel
V., MM3*. GERNGROSS, Frederick J., Jr., ENS. GETTLEMAN,
Robert A., S2*. GIBSON, Buck W., GM3*. GIBSON, Curtis W., S2.
GIBSON, Ganola F., MM3. GILBERT, Warner, Jr. S1. GILCREASE,
James, S2*. GILL, Paul E., WT2. GILMORE, Wilbur A., S2.
GISMONDI, Michael V., S1. GLADD, Millard, Jr., MM2*. GLAUB,
Francis A., GM2. GLENN, Jay R., AMM3*. GLOVKA, Erwin S., S2.
GODFREY, Marlo R., RM3. GOECKEL, Ernest S., LT. (jg). GOFF,
Thomas G., SF3*. GOLDEN, Curry., STM1. GOLDEN, James L., S1.
GONZALES, Ray A., S2. GOOCH, William L., F2*. GOOD, Robert
K., MM3. GOODWIN, Oliver A., CRTA. GORE, Leonard F., S2.
GORECKI, Joseph W., SK3. GOTTMAN, Paul J., S2.
GOVE, Carroll L., S2. GRAY, Willis L., S1*. GREATHOUSE, Bud
R., S1. GREEN, Robert U., S2.
GREEN, Tolbert, Jr., S1*. GREENE, Samuel G., S1. GREENLEE,
Charles I., S2*. GREER, Bob E., S2. GREGORY, Garland G., F1.
GREIF, Matthias D., WT3. GRIES, Richard C., F2. GRIEST, Frank
D., GM3. GRIFFIN, Jackie D., S1. GRIFFITH, Robert S., S1*.
GRIFFITHS, Leonard S., S2. GRIGGS, Donald R., F1. GRIMES,
David E., S2. GRIMES, James F., S2. GROCE, Floyd V., RDM2.
GROCH, John T., MM3. GUENTHER, Morgan E., EM3. GUERRERO, John
G., S1. GUILLOT, Murphy U., F1. GUYE, Ralph L., Jr., QM3.
GUYON, Harold L., F1. HABERMAN, Bernard, S2. HADUCH, John M.,
S1. HALE, Robert B., LT. HALE, William F., S2. HALL, Pressie,
F1. HALLORAN, Edward G., MM3. HAM, Saul A., S1. HAMBO,
William P., PHM3. HAMMEN, Robert, PHOM3. HAMRICK, James J.,
S2. HANCOCK, William A., GM3. HANKINSON, Clarence W., F2.
HANSEN, Henry, S2. HANSON, Harley C., WO.* HARLAND, George
A., S2. HARP, Charlie H., S1. HARPER, Vasco, STM1. HARRIS,
James D., F2. HARRIS, Willard E., F2.
HARRISON, Cecil M., CWO.*. HARRISON, Frederick E., S2.
HARRISON, James M., S1. HART, Fred Jr., RT2*. HARTRICK,
Willis B., MM1. HATFIELD, Willie N., S2*. HAUBRICH, Cloud D.,
S2. HAUSER, Jack I., SK2. HAVENER, Harlan C., F2*. HAVINS,
Otha A., Y3*. HAYES, Charles D., LCDR. HAYLES, Fleix, CK3.
HAYNES, Lewis L., MC., LCDR.*. HANYES, Robert A., LT. HAYNES,
William A., S1. HEERDT, Raymound E., F2. HEGGIE, William A.,
RDM3. HEINZ, Richard A., HA1. HELLER, John, S2*. HELLER,
Robert J. Jr., S2. HELSCHER, Ralph J., S1. HELT, Jack E., F2.
HENDERSON, Ralph L., S1. HENDRON, James R. Jr., F2. HENRY,
Earl O., DC, LCDR. HENSCH, Erwin F., LT.*. HENLSEY, Clifford,
SSMB2. HERBERT, Jack E., BM1. HERNDON, Duane, S2.
HERSHBERGER, Clarence L., S1*. HERSTINE, James F., ENS.
HICKEY, Harry T., RM3. HICKS, Clarence, S1. HIEBERT, Lloyd
H., GM1. HILL, Clarence M., CWTP. HILL, Joe W., STM1. HIll,
Nelson P. Jr., LT. HILL, Richard N., ENS. HIND, Lyle L., S2*.
HINES, Lionel G., WT1. HINKEN, John R., Jr., F2*. HOBBS,
Melvin D., S1. HODGE, Howard H., RM2.
HODGINS, Lester B., S2. HODSHIRE, John W., S2. HOERES,
George J., S2. HOLDEN, Punciano A., ST1. HOLLINGSWORTH,
Jimmie L., STM2. HOLLOWAY, Andrew J., S2. HOLLOWAY, Ralph H.,
COX. HOODERWERF, John Jr., F1. HOOPES, Gordon H., S2*.
HOPPER, Prentice W., S1. HOPPER, Roy L., AMM1. HORNER,
Durward R., WO.*. HORR, Wesley A., F2. HORRIGAN, John G., F1.
HORVATH, George J., F1*. HOSKINS, William O., Y3*. HOUCK,
Richard E., EM3*. HOUSTON, Robert G., F1. HOUSTON, William
H., PHM2. HOV, Donald A., S1. HOWISON, John D., ENS.*.
HUBELI, Joseph F., S2*. HUEBNER, Harry J. S1. HUGHES,
Lawrence E., F2. HUGHES, Robert A., FC3. HUGHES, William E.,
SSML2. HUMPHREY, Maynard L., S2. HUNTER, Arthur R. Jr., QM1.
HUNTLEY, Virgil C., CWO. HUPKA, Clarence E., BKR1*. HURLEY,
Woodrow, GM2*. HURST, Robert H., LT. HURT, James E., S2.
HUTCHISON, Merle B., S2. IGOU, Floyd, Jr., RM2. IZOR, Walter
E., F1. JACKSON, Henry, STML. JACQUEMOT, Joseph A., S2*.
JADLOSKI, George K., S2. JAKUBISIN, Joseph S., S2. JAMES,
Woodie E., COX*. JANNEY, Johns Hopkins, CDR. JARVIS, James
K., AM3*.
JEFFERS, Wallace M., COX. JENNEY, Charles I., LT. JENSEN,
Chris A., S2. JENSEN, Eugene W., S2*. JEWELL, Floyd R., SK1.
JOHNSON, Bernard J., S2. JOHNSON, Elwood W., S2. JOHNSON,
George G., S2. JOHNSON, Harold B., S1. JOHNSON, Sidney B.,
S1. JOHNSON, Walter M. Jr., S1. JOHNSON, William A., S1*.
JOHNSTON, Earl R., BM2. JOHNSTON, Lewis E., S1. JOHNSTON, Ray
F., MM1. JOHNSTON, Scott A., F2. JONES, Clinton L., COX*.
JONES, George E., S2. JONES, Jim, S2. JONES, Kenneth M., F1
MoMM. JONES, Sidney, S1*. JONES, Stanley F., S2. JORDAN,
Henry, STM2. JORDON, Thomas H., S2. JOSEY, Clifford O., S2.
JUMP, David A., ENS. JURGENSMEYER, Alfred J., S2. JURKIEWICZ,
Raymond S., S1*. JUSTICE, Robert E., S2*. KARPEL, Dan L.,
BM1. KARTER, Leo C. Jr., S2. KASTEN, Stanley O., HA1. KAWA,
Raymond P., SK3. KAY, Gust C., S1*. KAZMIERSKI, Walter, S1*.
KEENEY, Robert A., ENS. KEES, Shalous E., EM2*. KEITH,
Everette E., EM2. KELLY, Albert R., S2. KEMP, David P. Jr.,
SC3*. KENLY, Oliver W., RdM3*. KENNEDY, Andrew J. Jr., S2.
KENNEDY, Robert A., S1. KENNY, Francis J.P., S2.
KEPHART, Paul, S1. KERBY, Deo E., S1*. KERN, Harry G., S1.
KEY, S.T., EM2. KEYES, Edward H., COX*. KIGHT, Audy C., S1.
KILGORE, Archie C., F2. KILLMAN, Robert E., GM3. KINARD,
Nolan D., S1. KINCAID, Joseph E., FC2. KING, A.C., S1*. KING,
Clarence Jr., STM2. KING, James T., S1. KING, Richard E., S2.
KING, Robert H., S2. KINNAMAN, Robert L., S2. KINZLE, Raymond
A., BKR2*. KIRBY, Harry, S1. KIRK, James R., SC3. KIRKLAND,
Marvin F., S1*. KIRKMAN, Walter W., SF1. KISELICA, Joseph F.,
AMM2*. KITTOE, James W., F2*. KLAPPA, Ralph D., S2*. KLAUS,
Joseph F., S1*. KLEIN, Raymond J., S1. KLEIN, Theil J., SK3.
KNERNSCHIELD, Andrew N., S1. KNOLL, Paul E., COX. KNOTT,
Elbern L., S1. KNUDTSON, Raymond A., S1. KNUPKE, Richard R.,
MM3. KOCH, Edward C., EM3*. KOEGLER, Albert, S1. KOEGLER,
William, 5C3. KOLAKOWSKI, Ceslaus, SM3. KOLLINGER, Robert E.,
S1. KONESNY, John M., S1. KOOPMAN, Walter F., F2. KOPPANG,
Raymond I., LT (jg). KOUSKI, Fred, GM3. KOVALICK, George R.,
S2. KOZIARA, George, S2*.
KOZIK, Raymond., S1. KRAWYVZ, Henry J., MM3. KREIS,
Clifford E., S1*. KRON, Herman E. Jr., GM3. KRONENBERGER, Wm.
M., GM3. KRUEGER, Dale F., F2*. KRUEGER, Norman F., S2*.
KRUSE, Darwin G., S2. KRZYZEWSKI, John M., S2. KUHN, Clair
J., S1. KULOVITZ, Raymond J., S2. KURLICH, George R., FC3*.
KURYLA, Michael N. Jr., COX*. KUSIAK, Alfred M., S2.
KWIATKOWSKI, Marion J., S2. LABUDA, Arthur A., QM3.
LaFONTAINE, Paul S., S1. LAKATOS, Emil J., MM3. LAKE, Murl
C.,
[[Page 10773]]
S1. LAMB, Robert D., EM3. LAMBERT, Leonard F., S1. LANDON,
William W. Jr., FC2. LANE, Ralph, CMMA*. LANTER, Kenley M.,
S1*. LaPAGLIA, Carlos, GM2*. LaPARL, Lawrence E. Jr., S2.
LAPCZYNSKI, Edward W., S1. LARSEN, Melvin R., S2. LATIGUE,
Jackson, STM1. LATIMER, Billy F., S1. LATZER, Solomon, S2.
LAUGHLIN, Fain H., SK3. LAWS George E., S1*. LEATHERS,
Williams B., MM3. LeBARON, Robert W., S2. LeBOW, Cleatus A.,
FC03*. LEENERMAN, Arthur L., RDM3*. LELUIKA, Paul P., S2.
LESTINA, Francis J., S1. LETIZIA, Vincencio, S2. LETZ,
Wilbert J., SK1. LeVALLEY, William D., EM2. LEVENTON, Mevin
C., MM2. LeVIEUX, John J., F2. LEWELLEN, Thomas E., S2.
LEWIS, James R., F2. LEWIS, John R., GM3. LINDEN, Charles G.,
WT2. LINDSAY, Norman L., SF3. LINK, George C., S1. LINN, Roy,
S1. LINVILLE, Cecil H., SF2. LINVILLE, Harry J., S1. LIPPERT,
Robert G., S1. LIPSKI, Stanley W., CDR. LITTLE, Frank E.,
MM2. LIVERMORE, Raymond I., S2. LOCH, Edwin P, S1. LOCKWOOD,
Thomas H., S2*. LOEFFLER, Paul E. Jr., S2. LOFTIS, James B.
Jr., S1*. LOFTUS, Ralph D., F2. LOHR, Leo W., S1. LOMBARDI,
Ralph, S1. LONG, Joseph W., S1. LONGWELL, Donald J., S1.
LOPEZ, Daniel B., F2*. LOPEZ, Sam, S1*. LORENC, Edward R.,
S2. LOYD, John F., WT2. LUCAS, Robert A., S2. LUCCA, Frank
J., F2*. LUHMAN, Emerson D., MM3. LUNDGREN, Albert D., S1.
Luttrull, Claud A., COX. LUTZ, Charles H., S1. MAAS, Melvin
A., S1*. MABEE, Kenneth C., F2. MACE, Harold A., S2*.
MacFARLAND, Keith I., LT (jg). MACHADO, Clarence J., WT2.
MACK, Donald F., Bugler 1*. MADAY, Anthony F., AMM1*.
MADIGAN, Harry F, BM2. MAGDICS, Steve Jr., F2. MAGRAY, Dwain
F., S. MAKAROFF, Chester J., GM3*.
MAKOWSKI, Robert T., CWTA. MALDONADO, Salvador, BKR3*.
MALENA, Joseph J. Jr., GM2*. MALONE, Cecil E., S2. MALONE,
Elvin C., S1. MALONE, Michael L. Jr., LT (jg). MALSKI, Joseph
J., S1*. MANESS, Charles F., F2. MANKIN, Howard J., GM3.
MANN, Clifford E., S1. MANSKER, LaVoice, S2. MANTZ, Keith H.,
S1. MARCIULAITIS, Charles, S1. MARKMANN, Frederick H., WT1.
MARPLE, Paul T., ENS. MARSHALL, John L., WT2. MARSHALL,
Robert W., S2. MARTIN, Albert, S2. MARTIN, Everett G., S1.
MASSIER, George A., S1. MASTRECOLA, Michael M., S2. MATHESON,
Richard R., PHM3. MATRULLA, John, S1. MAUNTEL, Paul J., S2.
MAXWELL, Farrell J., S1*. McBRIDE, Ronald G. S1. McBRYDE,
Frank E., S2. McCALL, Donald C., S2*. McCLAIN, Raymond B.,
BM2*. McCLARY, Lester E., S2. McCLURE, David L., EM2. McCOMB,
Everett A., F1. McCORD, Edward Franklin Jr., EM3. McCORKLE,
Ray R., S1. McCORMICK, Earl W., MOMM2. McCOSKEY, Paul F., S1.
McCOY, John S., Jr., M2. McCRORY, Millard V. Jr., WT2*.
McDANIEL, Johnny A., S1. McDONALD, Franklin G. Jr., F2.
McDONNER, David P. Jr., F1. McDOWELL, Robert E., S1. McELROY,
Clarence E., S1*.
McFALL, Walter E., S2*. McFEE, Carl S., Sd. McGINNIS, Paul
W., SM3*. McGINTY, John M., S1. McGUIGGAN, Robert M., S1*.
McGUIRE, Denis, S2. McGUIRK, Philip A., LT (jg). McHENRY,
Loren C. Jr., S1*. McHONE, Ollie, F1. McKEE, George E. Jr.,
S1. McKENNA, Michael J., S1. McKENZIE, Ernest E., S1*.
McKINNON, Francis M., Y3. McKISSICK, Charles B., LT (jg)*.
McKLIN, Henry T., S1*. McLAIN, Patrick J., S2*. McLEAN,
Douglas B., EM3. McNABB, Thomas, Jr., F2. McNICKLE, Arthur
S., F1. McQUITTY, Roy E., COX. McVAY, Charles Butler, III,
CAPT.*. McVAY, Richard C., Y3*. MEADE, Sidney H., S1.
MEHLBAUM, Raymond A., S1. MEIER, Harold E., S2. MELICHAR,
Charles H., EM3. MELVIN, Carl L., F1. MENCHEFF, Manual A.,
S2. MEREDITH, Charles E., S1*. MERGLER, Charles M., RDM2.
MESTAS, Nestor A., WT2*. METCALF, David W., GM3. MEYER,
Charles T., S2*. MICHAEL, Bertrand F., BKR3. MICHAEL, Elmer
O., S1. MICHNO, Arthur R., S2. MIKESKA, Willie W., S2.
MIKOLAYEK, Joseph, COX*. MILBRODT, Glen L. S2*. MILES,
Theodore K., LT. MILLER, Artie R., GM2. MILLER, George E.,
F1. MILLER, Glenn E., S2. MILLER, Samuel George Jr., FC3.
MILLER, Walter R., S2. MILLER, Walter W., B1. MILLER,
Wilbur H., CMM. MILLS, William H., EM3. MINER, Herbert J. II,
RT2*. MINOR, Richard L., S1. MINOR, Robert W., S2. MIRES,
Carl E., S2. MIRICH, Wally M., S1. MISKOWIEC, Theodore F.,
S1. MITCHELL, James E., S2*. MITCHELL, James H. Jr., SK1.
MITCHELL, Kenneth E., S1*. MITCHELL, Norval Jerry Jr., S1*.
MITCHELL, Paul B., FC3. MICHELL, Winston C., S1. MITTLER,
Peter John Jr., GM3. MIXON, Malcom L., GM2. MLADY, Clarence
C., S1*. MODESITT, Carl E., S2*. MODISHER, Melvin W., MC, LTQ
(jg)*. MONCRIEF, Mack D., S2. MONKS, Robert B., GM3. MONTOYA,
Frank E., S1. MOORE, Donald G., S2. MOORE, Elbert, S2. MOORE,
Harley E., S1. MOORE, Kyle C., LCDR. MOORE, Wyatt P., BKR1.
MORAN, Joseph J., RM1*. MORGAN, Eugene S., BM2*. MORGAN,
Glenn G., BGM3*. MORGAN, Lewis E., S2. MORGAN, Telford F.,
ENS. MORRIS, Albert O., S1*. MORSE, Kendall H., LT (jg).
MORTON, Charles W., S2. MORTON, Marion E., SK2. MOSELEY,
Morgan M., SC1*. MOULTON, Charles C., S2. MOWREY, Ted E.,
SK3*. MOYNELO, Harold C. Jr., ENS. MROSZAK, Frank A., S2.
MULDOON, John J., MM1*. MULVEY, William R., BM1*. MURILLO,
Sammy, S2. MURPHY, Allen, S2. MURPHY, Paul J., FC3*. MUSARRA,
Joseph, S1. MYERS, Charles Lee Jr., S2. MYERS, Glen A., MM2.
MYERS, H.B., F1*. NABERS, Neal A., S2. NASPINI, Joseph A.,
F2*. NEAL, Charles K., S2. NEAL, George M., S2. NEALE, Harlan
B., S2. NELSEN, Edward J., GM1*. NELSON, Frank H., S2*. NEU,
Hugh H., S2. NEUBAUER, Richard, S2. NEUMAN, Jerome C., F1.
NEVILLE, Bobby G., S2. NEWCOMER, Lewis W., MM3. NEWELL, James
T., EM1. NEWHALL, James F., S1*. NICHOLS, James C., S2*.
NICHOLS, Joseph L., BM2. NICHOLS, Paul V., MM3. NIELSEN, Carl
Aage Chor Jr., F1. NIETO, Baltazar P, GM3. NIGHTINGALE,
William O., MM1*. NISKANEN, John H., F2. NIXON, Daniel M.,
S2*. NORBERG, James A., CBMP*. NORMAN, Theodore R., GM2.
NOWAK, George J., F2. NUGENT, William G., S2. NUNLEY, James
P, F1. NUNLEY, Troy A., S2*. NUTT, Raymond A., S2. NUTTALL,
Alexander C., S1*. OBLEDO, Mike G., S1*. O'BRIEN, Arthur J.,
S2. O'CALLAGHAN, Del R., WT2. OCHOA, Ernest, FC3.
O'DONNELL, James E., WT3*. OLDERON, Bernhard G., S1.
OLIJAR, John, S1*. O'NEIL, Eugene E., S1. ORR, Homer L., HAI.
ORR, John Irwin, Jr., LT. ORSBURN, Frank H., SSML2*. ORTIZ,
Orlando R., Y3. OSBURN, Charles W., S2. OTT, Theodore G., Y1.
OUTLAND, Felton J., S1*. OVERMAN, Thurman D., S2*. OWEN,
Keith N., SC3*. OWENS, Robert Sheldon, Jr., QM3. OWENSBY,
Clifford C., F2. PACE, Curtis, S2*. PACHECO, Jose C., S2*.
PAGITT, Eldon E., F2. PAIT, Robert E., BM2. PALMITER, Adelore
A., S2*. PANE, Francis W., S2. PARHAM, Fred, ST2. PARK, David
E., ENS. PAROUBEK, Richard A., Y1*. PASKET, Lyle M., S2*.
PATTERSON, Alfred T., S2. PATTERSON, Kenneth G., S1. PATZER,
Herman L., EM1. PAULK, Luther D., S2*. PAYNE, Edward G., S2*.
PAYNE, George D., S2. PENA, Santos A., S1*. PENDER, Welburn
M., F2. PEREZ, Basilio, S2*. PERKINS, Edward C., F2*. PERRY,
Robert J., S2. PESSOLANO, Michael R., LT. PETERS, Earl J.,
S2. PETERSON, Avery C., S2*. PETERSON, DARREL E., S1.
PETERSON, Frederick A., MAM3. PETERSON, Glenn H., S1.
PETERSON, Ralph R., S2. PETRINCIC, John Nicholas, Jr., FC3.
PEYTON, Robert C., STM1. PHILLIPS, Aulton N. Sr., F2.
PHILLIPS, Huie H., S2*. PIERCE, Clyde A., CWTA. PIERCE,
Robert W., S2. PIPERATA, Alfred J., MM1. PITMAN, Robert F.,
S2. PITTMAN, Almire, Jr., ST3. PLEISS, Roger D., F2. PODISH,
Paul, S2*. PODSCHUN, Clifford A., S2*. POGUE, Herman C., S2*.
POHL, Theodore, F2. POKRYFKA, Donald M., S2. POOR, Gerald M.,
S2*. POORE, Albert F., S2. POTRYKUS, Frank P., F2. POTTS,
Dale F., S2*. POWELL, Howard W., F1. POWERS, R. C. Ottis, S2.
Poynter, Raymond L., S2. PRAAY, William T., S2. PRATHER,
Clarence J., CMMA. PRATT, George R., F1. PRICE, James D.,
S1*. PRIESTLE, Ralph A., S2. PRIOR, Walter M., S2. PUCKETT,
William C., S2. PUPUIS, John A., S1. PURCEL, Franklin W., S2.
PURSEL, Forest V., WT2. PYRON, Freddie H., S1. QUEALY,
William C. Jr., PR2*. RABB, John R., SC1. RAGSDALE, Jean O.,
S1. RAHN, Alvin W., SK3. RAINES, Clifford Junior, S2. RAINS,
Rufus B., S1. RAMIREZ, Ricardo, S1*. RAMSEYER, Raymond C.,
RT3. RANDOLPH, Clco, STM1. RATHBONE, Wilson, S2*. RATHMAN,
Frank Junior, S1.
RAWDON, John H., EM3*. REALING, Lyle O., FC2. REDMAYNE,
Richard B., LT.*. REED, Thomas W., EM3. REEMTS, Alvan T., S1.
REESE, Jesse E., S2. REEVES, Chester O. B., S1*. REEVES,
Robert A., F2. REGALADO, Robert H., S1. REHNER, Herbert A.,
S1*. REID, Curtis F., S2*. REID, James E., BM2*. REID, John,
LCDR*. REID, Tommy L., RDM38*. REILLY, James F., Y1. REINERT,
Leroy, F1. REMONDET, Edward J. Jr., S2. REYNOLDS, Alford,
GM28*. REYNOLDS, Andrew E., S1. REYNOLDS, Carleton C., F1.
RHEA, Clifford, F2. RHODES, Vernon L., F1. RHOTEN, Roy E.,
F2. RICE, Albert, STM1. RICH, Garland L., S1. RICHARDSON,
John R., S2. RICHARDSON, Joseph G., S2. RIDER, Francis A.,
RDM3. RILEY, Junior Thomas, BM2. RINEAY, Francis Henry, Jr.,
S28*. ROBERTS, Benjamin E., WT1. ROBERTS, Norman H., MM1*.
ROBERTS, Charles, S1. ROBISON, Gerald E., RT3. ROBISON, John
D., COX*. ROBISON, Marzie J., S2. ROCHE, Joseph M., LT.
ROCKENBACH, Earl A., SC2. ROESBERRY, Jack R., S1. ROGELL,
Henry T., F1. ROGERS, Ralph G., RDM3*. ROGERS, Ross, Jr.,
ENS*. ROLAND, Jack A., PHM1.
ROLLINS, Willard E., RM3. ROMANI, Frank J., HAI. ROOF,
Charles W, S2. ROSE, Berson H., GM2. ROSS, Glen E., F2.
ROTHMAN, Aaron, RDM3. ROWDEN, Joseph G., F1. ROZZANO, John,
Jr., S2. RUDOMANSKI, Eugene W., RT2. RUE, William G., MM1.
RUSSELL, Robert A., S2. RUSSELL, Virgil M., COX*. RUST, Edwin
L., S1. RUTHERFORD, Robert A., RM2. RYDZESKI, Frank W., F1.
SAATHOFF, Don W., S2*. SAENZ, Jose A., SC3. SAIN, Albert F.,
S1. SALINAS, Alfredo A., S1. SAMANO, Nuraldo, S2. SAMPSON,
Joseph R., S2. SAMS, Robert C., STM2. SANCHEZ, Alejandro V.,
S2. SANCHEZ, Fernando S., SC3*. SAND, Cyrus H., BM1. SANDERS,
Everett R., MOMM1.
[[Page 10774]]
SASSMAN, Gordon W., COX. SCANLAN, Osceola C., S2*.
SCARBROUGH, Fred R., COX. SCHAAP, Marion J., QM1. SCHAEFER,
Harry W., S2. SCHAFFER, Edward J., S1. SCHARTON, Elmer D.,
S1. SCHECHTERLE, Harold J., RDM3*. SCHEIB, Albert E., F2.
SCHEWE, Alfred P., S1. SCHLATTER, Robert L., AOM3. SCHLOTTER,
James R., RDM3. SCHMUECK, John A., CPHMP*. SCHNAPPAUF, Harold
J., SK3. SCHOOLEY, Dillard A., COX. SCHUMACHER, Arthur J.,
Jr., CEMA. SCOGGINS, Millard, SM2.
SCOTT, Burl D., STM2. SCOTT, Curtis M., S1. SCOTT,
Hilliard, STM 1. SEABERT, Clarke W., S2*. SEBASTIAN, Clifford
H., RM2. SEDIVI, Alfred J., PHOM2. SELBACH, Walter H., WT2.
SELL, Ernest F., EM2. SELLERS, Leonard E., SF3. SELMAN, Amos,
S2. SETCHFIELD, Arthur L., COX*. SEWELL, Loris E., S2.
SHAFFER, Robert P., GM3*. SHAND, Kenneth W., WT2. SHARP,
William H., S2*. SHAW, Calvin P., GM2. SHEARER, Harold J.,
S2*. SHELTON, William E. Jr., SM2. SHIELDS, Cecil N., SM2.
SHIPMAN, Robert L., GM3. SHOWN, Donald H., CFC*. SHOWS, Audie
B., COX*. SIKES, Theodore A., ENS. SILCOX, Burnice R., S1.
SILVA, Phillip G., S1. SIMCOX, Gordon, W., EM3. SIMCOX, John
A., F1. SIMPSON, William E., BM2,*. SIMS, Clarence, CK2.
SINCLAIR, J. Ray, S2*. SINGERMAN, David, SM2. SIPES, John L.,
S1. SITEK, Henry J., S2*. SITZLAR, William C., F1. SLADEK,
Wayne L, BM1*. SLANKARD, Jack C., S1*. SMALLEY, Howard E.,
S1. SMELTZER, Charles H., S2*. SMERAGLIA, Michael, RM3.
SMITH, Carl M., SM2. SMITH, Charles A., S1. SMITH, Cozell
Lee, Jr., COX*. SMITH, Edwin L., S2. SMITH, Eugene G., BM2.
SMITH, Frederick C., F2*. SMITH, George R., S1. SMITH, Guy
N., FC2. SMITH, Henry A., F1. SMITH, Homer L., F2. SMITH,
James W., S2*. SMITH, Kenneth D., S2. SMITH, Olen E., CM3.
SNYDER, John N., SF2. SNYDER, Richard R., S1. SOLOMON,
William, Jr., S2. SORDIA, Ralph, S2. SOSPIZIO, Andre, EM3*.
SPARKS, Charles B., COX. SPEER, Lowell E., RT3. SPENCER,
Daniel F., S1*. SPENCER, James D., LT. SPENCER, Roger, S1*.
SPECNER, Sidney A., WO. SPINDLE, Orval A., S1. SPINELLI, John
A., SC2*. SPOMER, Elmer 3., SF2. St. PIERRE, Leslie R., MM2.
STADLER, Robert H., WT3. STAMM, Florian M., S2*. STANFORTH,
David E., F2. STANKOWSKI, Archie J., S2. STANTURF, Frederick
R., MM2. STEIGERWALD, Fred, GM2. STEPHENS, Richard P., S2*.
STEVENS, George G., WT2*. STEVENS, Wayne A., MM2. STEWART,
Glenn W., CFCP*. STEWART, Thomas A., SK2. STICKLEY, Charles
B. GM3. STIER, William G., S1. STIMSON, David, ENS. STONE,
Dale E., S2. STONE, Homer B., Y1. STOUT, Kenneth I., LCDR.
STRAIN, Joseph M., S2. STREICH, Allen C., RM2*. STICKLAND,
George T., S2.
STRIETER, Robert C., S2. STRIPE, William S., S2. STROM,
Donald A., S2. STROMKO, Joseph A., F2. STRYFFELER, Virgil L.,
F2. STUECKLE, Robert L., S2. STURTEVANT, Elwyn L., RM2*.
SUDANO, Angelo A., SSML3. SUHR, Jerome R., S2. SULLIVAN,
James P., S2. SULLIVAN, William D., PTR2. SUTER, Frnak E.,
S1*. SWANSON, Robert H., MM2. SWART, Robert L., LT (jg).
SWINDELL, Jerome H., F2. TAGGART, Thomas H., S1. TALLEY,
Dewell E., RM2. TAWATER, Charles H., F1*. TEERLINK, David S.,
CWO. TELFORD, Arno J., RT3. TERRY, Robert W., S1. THELEN,
Richard P., S2*. THIELSCHER, Robert T., CRTP. THOMAS, Ivan
M., S1*. THOMPSON, David A., EM3*. THORPE, Everett N., WT3.
THURKETTLE, William C., S2*. TIDWELL, James F., S2.
TISTHAMMER, Bernard E., CGMA. TOCE, Nicolo, S2. TODD, Harold
O., CM3. TORRETTA, John Mickey, F1*. TOSH, Bill H., RDM3.
TRIEMER, Ernst A., ENS. TROTTER, Arthur C., RM2. TRUDEAU,
Edmond A., LT. TRUE, Roger O., S2. TRUITT, Robert E., RM2.
TRYON, Frederick B., BUG2. TULL, James A., S1. TURNER,
Charles M., S2*. TURNER, William C., MM2. TURNER, William H.,
Jr., ACMMA. TWIBLE, Harlan M., ENS.*.
ULIBARRI, Antonio D., S2. ULLMANN, Paul E., LT (jg).
UMENHOFFER, Lyle E., S1*. UNDERWOOD, Carey L., S1. UNDERWOOD,
Ralph E., S1*. VAN METER, Joseph W., WT3*. WAKEFIELD, James
N., S1. WALKER, A.W., STM1. WALKER, Jack E., RM2. WALKER,
Verner B., F2*. WALLACE, Earl J., RDM3. WALLACE, John, RDM3.
WALTERS, Donald H., F1. WARREN, William R., RT3. WATERS, Jack
L., CYA. WATSON, Winston H., F2. WELLS, Charles O., S1*.
WELLS, Gerald Lloyd, EM3. WENNERHOLM, Wayne L, COX. WENZEL,
Ray G., RT3. WHALEN, Stuart D., GM2. WHALLON, Louis E, Jr.,
LT (jg). WHITE, Earl C., TC1. WHITE, Howard M., CWTP.
WHITING, George A., F2*. WHITMAN, Robert T., LT. WILCOX,
Lindsey Z., WT2* WILEMAN, Roy W., PHM3. WILLARD, Merrirnan
D., PHM2. WILLIAMS, Billie J., MM2. WILLIAMS, Magellan, STM1.
WILLIAMS, Robert L., WO. WILSON, Frank, F2. WILSON, Thomas
B., S1. WISNIEWSKI, Stanley, F2*. WITMER, Milton R., EM2.
WITZIG, Robert M., FC3*. WOJCIECHOWSKI, Maryian J., GM2.
WOLFE, Floyd R., GM3. WOODS, Leonard T., CWO. WOOLSTON, John,
ENS.*. YEAPLE, Jack T., Y3. ZINK, Charles W., EM2*. ZOBAL,
Francis J., S2.
Marine Detachment
BRINKER, David A., PFC. BROWN, Orlo N., PFC. BUSH, John R.,
PVT. CROMLING, Charles J., Jr., PLTSGT. DAVIS, William H.,
PFC. DUPECK, Albert Jr., PFC. GREENWALD, Jacob, 1st SGT*.
GRIMM, Loren E., PFC. HANCOCK, Thomas A., PFC. HARRELL, Edgar
A., CPL*. HOLLAND, John F. Jr., PFC. HUBBARD, Gordon R., PFC.
HUBBRD, Leland R., PFC. HUGHES, Max M., PFC*. JACOB, Melvin
C., PFC* KENWORTHY, Glenn W, CPL. KIRCHNER, John H., PVT.
LARSEN, Harlan D., PFC. LEES, Henry W., PFC. MARTTILA, Howard
W., PVT. McCOY, Giles G., PFC*. MESSENGER, Leonard J., PFC.
MUNSON, Bryan C., PFC. MURPHY, Charles T., PFC. NEAL, William
F., PFC. PARKE, Edward L., CAPT. REDD, Robert F., PVT.
REINOLD, George, H., PFC. RICH, Raymond A., RIGGINS, Earl,
PVT*. ROSE, Francis E., PFC. SPINO, Frank J., PFC. SPOONER,
Miles L., PVT*. STAUFFER, Edward H., 1st LT. STRAUGHN, Howard
V. Jr., CPL. THOMSEN, Arthur A., PFC. TRACY, Richard I. Jr.,
SGT. UFFELMAN, Paul R. PFC*. WYCH, Robert A. PFC.
* Indicates a survivor.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 42
At the request of Mr. Helms, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Nickles) was added as a cosponsor of S. 42, a bill to amend title
X of the Public Health Service Act to permit family planning projects
to offer adoption services.
S. 171
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 171, a bill
to amend the Clean Air Act to limit the concentration of sulfur in
gasoline used in motor vehicles.
S. 242
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the names of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Kerrey) and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) were added as
cosponsors of S. 242, a bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act
to require the labeling of imported meat and meat food products.
S. 327
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 327, a bill to
exempt agricultural products, medicines, and medical products from U.S.
economic sanctions.
S. 455
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Fitzgerald) was added as a cosponsor of S. 455, a bill to amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the requirements
for the admission of nonimmigrant nurses who will practice in health
professional shortage areas.
S. 459
At the request of Mr. Breaux, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) were added as
cosponsors of S. 459, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase the State ceiling on private activity bonds.
S. 472
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 472, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide certain medicare
beneficiaries with an exemption to the financial limitations imposed on
physical, speech-language pathology, and occupational therapy services
under part B of the medicare program, and for other purposes.
S. 495
At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) were added as
cosponsors of S. 495, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the
highway sanctions.
S. 506
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
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.
S. 512
At the request of Mr. Gorton, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island
[[Page 10775]]
(Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of 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.
S. 514
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the names of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine) were added as
cosponsors of S. 514, a bill to improve the National Writing Project.
S. 635
At the request of Mr. Mack, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Bingaman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 635, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify the depreciable
life of printed wiring board and printed wiring assembly equipment.
S. 676
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 676, a bill to
locate and secure the return of Zachary Baumel, a citizen of the United
States, and other Israeli soldiers missing in action.
S. 684
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 684, a bill to
amend title 11, United States Code, to provide for family fishermen,
and to make chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, permanent.
S. 693
At the request of Mr. Helms, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Lott) was added as a cosponsor of S. 693, a bill to assist in the
enhancement of the security of Taiwan, and for other purposes.
S. 718
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 718, a bill to amend
chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code, to extend the civil
service retirement provisions of such chapter which are applicable to
law enforcement officers, to inspectors of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, inspectors and canine enforcement officers of
the United States Customs Service, and revenue officers of the Internal
Revenue Service.
S. 800
At the request of Mr. Burns, the names of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Allard) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) were added as
cosponsors of S. 800, a bill to promote and enhance public safety
through the use of 9-1-1 as the universal emergency assistance number,
further deployment of wireless 9-1-1 service, support of States in
upgrading 9-1-1 capabilities and related functions, encouragement of
construction and operation of seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable
networks for personal wireless services, and for other purposes.
S. 820
At the request of Mr. Chafee, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Grams) was added as a cosponsor of S. 820, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 4.3-cent motor fuel excise
taxes on railroads and inland waterway transportation which remain in
the general fund of the Treasury.
S. 870
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Stevens) was added as a cosponsor of S. 870, a bill to amend the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to increase the
efficiency and accountability of Offices of Inspector General within
Federal departments, and for other purposes.
S. 879
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) were
added as cosponsors of S. 879, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide a shorter recovery period for the depreciation
of certain leasehold improvements.
S. 881
At the request of Mr. Bennett, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 881, a bill to ensure
confidentiality with respect to medical records and health care-related
information, and for other purposes.
S. 908
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) were added as
cosponsors of S. 908, a bill to establish a comprehensive program to
ensure the safety of food products intended for human consumption that
are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, and for other
purposes.
S. 1017
At the request of Mr. Mack, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1017, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State ceiling on the low-
income housing credit.
S. 1023
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1023, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to stabilize indirect graduate
medical education payments.
S. 1024
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Mack) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1024, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to carve out from payments to
Medicare+Choice organizations amounts attributable to disproportionate
share hospital payments and pay such amounts directly to those
disproportionate share hospitals in which their enrollees receive care.
S. 1025
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Robb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1025, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure the proper payment of
approved nursing and allied health education programs under the
medicare program.
S. 1053
At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Gramm) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1053, a bill to amend the Clean
Air Act to incorporate certain provisions of the transportation
conformity regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1999.
S. 1057
At the request of Mr. Mack, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1057, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify certain provisions applicable
to real estate investment trusts.
S. 1070
At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Frist) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1070, a bill to require the
Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of a National Academy of
Sciences study before promulgating a standard, regulation or guideline
on ergonomics.
Senate Joint Resolution 21
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Sessions), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) were
added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 21, a joint resolution
to designate September 29, 1999, as ``Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States Day.''
Senate Resolution 59
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) were added as cosponsors of Senate
Resolution 59, a bill designating both July 2, 1999, and July 2, 2000,
as ``National Literacy Day.''
Senate Resolution 103
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 103,
a
[[Page 10776]]
resolution concerning the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre of June 4, 1989, in the People's Republic of China.
Amendment No. 377
At the request of Mr. Roberts, the names of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Allard), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Fitzgerald)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 377 proposed to S. 1059, an
original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
Amendment No. 383
At the request of Mr. Thurmond, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 383 proposed to S. 1059, an original bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 34--RELATING TO THE OBSERVANCE OF ``IN
MEMORY'' DAY
Mr. SPECTER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Con. Res. 34
Whereas many of the individuals who served in the Armed
Forces and in civilian roles in Vietnam during the Vietnam
War have since died, in part as the result of illnesses and
conditions associated with service in Vietnam during that
war;
Whereas these men and women, whose ultimate health
conditions had a basis in their service in Vietnam during the
Vietnam War, sacrificed their lives for their country in a
very real sense;
Whereas under criteria established by the Department of
Defense, the deaths of these men and women do not qualify as
Vietnam War deaths;
Whereas under Department guidelines, these men and women
also do not meet the criteria for eligibility to have their
names inscribed on the Memorial Wall of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial in the District of Columbia;
Whereas ``In Memory'' Day was established several years ago
in order to honor the Americans who gave their lives in
service to their country as a result of service in Vietnam
but had not otherwise been honored for doing so;
Whereas ``In Memory'' Day is now a project of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Fund;
Whereas to date 633 Americans have met the criteria for
eligibility to be honored by the ``In Memory'' Program; and
Whereas the Americans who have been named by the ``In
Memory'' Program are honored each year during a ceremony at
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that ``In
Memory'' Day should be observed on the third Monday in April
each year, the day on which Patriots Day is also observed, in
honor of the men and women of the United States whose deaths
had a basis in their service in Vietnam during the Vietnam
War and who are thereby true examples to the Nation of
patriotism and sacrifice.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I submit a concurrent resolution
which would express the Sense of the Congress that the third Monday in
April be designated ``In Memory Day.'' In Memory Day will be a time for
family and friends to gather and commemorate the supreme sacrifice made
by their loved ones as their names are read from the In Memory Honor
Roll at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as was done most recently on
April 19, 1999. I feel this to be a small yet fitting tribute to those
whose lives were ultimately claimed by the war in Vietnam.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a solemn reminder that the defense
of liberty is not without loss. The 58,214 servicemembers who gave
their lives in Vietnam will forever be memorialized in a most fitting
manner. Their names, inscribed in granite walls, symbolize the reality
that our nation's military personnel protects America behind walls
built with the blood of patriots. We must keep them in our memory
always.
Not all of those who died, however, are commemorated on the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. Unaccounted for are those succumbed to the ravages
of psychological wounds upon their return home. Unaccounted for are all
those who died after war's end, yet whose deaths were intrinsically
linked to wartime service. Their family members and loved ones have no
wall to go to; no names to touch; no memorial to share.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF) runs an ``In Memory
Program'' to honor these silent fallen. As part of this program, the
VVMF keeps an ``In Memory Honor Roll'' to commemorate those who served
and died prematurely, but whose deaths do not fit the parameters for
inclusion upon the Wall. It it time for Congress to do its part in
honoring these brave soldiers and their families.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED
______
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
______
HUTCHISON AMENDMENT NO. 389
(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her
to the bill (S. 1059) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is the National Security Strategy of the United
States to ``deter and defeat large-scale, cross-border
aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time
frames;''
(2) The deterrence of Iraq and Iran in Southwest Asia and
the deterrence of North Korea in Northeast Asia represent two
such potential large-scale, cross-border theater
requirements;
(3) The United States has 120,000 troops permanently
assigned to those theaters;
(4) The United States has an additional 70,000 troops
assigned to non-NATO/non-Pacific threat foreign countries;
(5) The United States has more than 6,000 troops in Bosnia-
Herzegovina on indefinite assignment;
(6) The United States has diverted permanently assigned
resources from other theaters to support operations in the
Balkans;
(7) The United States provides military forces to seven
active United Nations peacekeeping operations, including
missions in Haiti and the Western Sahara, and some missions
that have continued for decades;
(8) Between 1986 and 1998, the number of American military
deployments per year has nearly tripled at the same time the
Department of Defense budget has been reduced in real terms
by 38 percent;
(9) The Army has 10 active-duty divisions today, down from
18 in 1991, while on an average day in FY98, 28,000 U.S. Army
soldiers were deployed to more than 70 countries for over 300
separate missions;
(10) Active Air Force fighter wings have gone from 22 to 13
since 1991, while 70 percent of air sorties in Operation
Allied Force over the Balkans are U.S.-flown and the Air
Force continues to enforce northern and southern no-fly zones
in Iraq;
(11) The United States Navy has been reduced in size to 339
ships, its lowest level since 1938, necessitating the
redeployment of the only overseas homeported aircraft carrier
from the Western Pacific to the Mediterranean to support
Operation Allied Force;
(12) In 1998 just 10 percent of eligible carrier naval
aviators--27 out of 261--accepted continuation bonuses and
remained in service;
(13) In 1998 48 percent of Air Force pilots eligible for
continuation opted to leave the service.
(14) The Army could fall 6,000 below Congressionally
authorized troop strength by the end of 1999.
(b) Sense of Congress:
(1) It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) The readiness of U.S. military forces to execute the
National Security Strategy of the United States is being
eroded from a combination of declining defense budgets and
expanded missions;
(B) There may be missions to which the United States is
contributing Armed Forces from which the United States can
begin disengaging.
[[Page 10777]]
(c) Report Requirement.--
(1) Not later than July 30, 1999, the President shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committees on Appropriations in
both Houses, a report prioritizing the ongoing global
missions to which the United States is contributing troops.
The President shall include in the report:
(I) a proposal for shifting resources from low priority
missions in support of higher priority missions;
(II) a proposal for consolidating or reducing U.S. troop
commitments where possible;
(III) a proposal to reduce U.S. troop commitments
worldwide;
(IV) a proposal for ending low priority missions.
______
FRIST AMENDMENT NO. 390
(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. FRIST submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 1059, supra; as follows:
On page 254, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 676. PARTICIPATION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES IN MONTGOMERY GI BILL PROGRAM.
(a) Participation Authorized.--(1) Subchapter II of chapter
30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 3018C the following new section:
``Sec. 3018d. Opportunity to enroll: certain VEAP
participants; active duty personnel not previously enrolled
``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an
individual who--
``(1) either--
``(A) is a participant on the date of the enactment of this
section in the educational benefits program provided by
chapter 32 of this title; or
``(B) has made an election under section 3011(c)(1) or
3012(d)(1) of this title not to receive educational
assistance under this chapter and has not withdrawn that
election under section 3018(a) of this title as of such date;
``(2) is serving on active duty (excluding periods referred
to in section 3202(1)(C) of this title in the case of an
individual described in paragraph (1)(A)) on such date;
``(3) before applying for benefits under this section, has
completed the requirements of a secondary school diploma (or
equivalency certificate) or has successfully completed the
equivalent of 12 semester hours in a program of education
leading to a standard college degree;
``(4) if discharged or released from active duty after the
date on which the individual makes the election described in
paragraph (5), is discharged with an honorable discharge or
released with service characterized as honorable by the
Secretary concerned; and
``(5) during the one-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this section, makes an irrevocable election
to receive benefits under this section in lieu of benefits
under chapter 32 of this title or withdraws the election made
under section 3011(c)(1) or 3012(d)(1) of this title, as the
case may be, pursuant to procedures which the Secretary of
each military department shall provide in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for the
purpose of carrying out this section or which the Secretary
of Transportation shall provide for such purpose with respect
to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in
the Navy;
is entitled to basic educational assistance under this
chapter.
``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), in
the case of an individual who makes an election under
subsection (a)(5) to become entitled to basic education
assistance under this chapter--
``(A) the basic pay of the individual shall be reduced (in
a manner determined by the Secretary of Defense) until the
total amount by which such basic pay is reduced is $1,200; or
``(B) to the extent that basic pay is not so reduced before
the individual's discharge or release from active duty as
specified in subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall collect
from the individual an amount equal to the difference between
$1,200 and the total amount of reductions under subparagraph
(A), which shall be paid into the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
``(2) In the case of an individual previously enrolled in
the educational benefits program provided by chapter 32 of
this title, the Secretary shall reduce the total amount of
the reduction in basic pay otherwise required by paragraph
(1) by an amount equal to so much of the unused contributions
made by the individual to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans
Education Account under section 3222(a) of this title as do
not exceed $1,200.
``(3) An individual may at any time pay the Secretary an
amount equal to the difference between the total of the
reductions otherwise required with respect to the individual
under this subsection and the total amount of the reductions
with respect to the individual under this subsection at the
time of the payment. Amounts paid under this paragraph shall
be paid into the Treasury of the United States as
miscellaneous receipts.
``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an individual
who is enrolled in the educational benefits program provided
by chapter 32 of this title and who makes the election
described in subsection (a)(5) shall be disenrolled from the
program as of the date of such election.
``(2) For each individual who is disenrolled from such
program, the Secretary shall refund--
``(A) to the individual in the manner provided in section
3223(b) of this title so much of the unused contributions
made by the individual to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans
Education Account as are not used to reduce the amount of the
reduction in the individual's basic pay under subsection
(b)(2); and
``(B) to the Secretary of Defense the unused contributions
(other than contributions made under section 3222(c) of this
title) made by such Secretary to the Account on behalf of
such individual.
``(3) Any contribution made by the Secretary of Defense to
the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Account pursuant to
section 3222(c) of this title on behalf of an individual
referred to in paragraph (1) shall remain in such account to
make payments of benefits to the individual under section
3015(f) of this title.
``(d) The procedures provided in regulations referred to in
subsection (a) shall provide for notice of the requirements
of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section 3011(a)(3) of
this title. Receipt of such notice shall be acknowledged in
writing.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 30 of
that title is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 3018C the following new item:
``3018D. Opportunity to enroll: certain VEAP participants; active duty
personnel not previously enrolled.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3015(f) of that title is
amended by striking ``or 3018C'' and inserting ``3018C, or
3018D''.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
any law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act
which includes provisions terminating or reducing the
contributions of members of the Armed Forces for basic
educational assistance under subchapter II of chapter 30 of
title 38, United States Code, should terminate or reduce by
an identical amount the contributions of members of the Armed
Forces for such assistance under section of section 3018D of
that title, as added by subsection (a).
(d) Termination of Triana Program of NASA.--(1) The
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall terminate the Triana program.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
authorized to be appropriated for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration fiscal year 2000 may be obligated or
expended for the Triana program, except $2,500,000 which
shall be available for obligation and expenditure in that
fiscal year only for the costs of termination of the program.
______
THURMOND (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 391
(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. McCain, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. Cleland, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Burns, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, and Ms. Snowe)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill, S.
1059, supra; as follows:
In title VI, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:
SEC. 659. COMPUTATION OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS.
(a) Increased Basic Annuity.--(1) Subsection (a)(1)(B)(i)
of section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and inserting
``the product of the base amount and the percent applicable
for the month. The percent applicable for a month is 35
percent for months beginning on or before the date of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000, 40 percent for months beginning after such
date and before October 2004, and 45 percent for months
beginning after September 2004.''.
(2) Subsection (a)(2)(B(i)(I) of such section is amended by
Striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the percent specified
under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being applicable for the
month''.
(3) Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the
applicable percent''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent
applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the
percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being
applicable for the month.''.
(4) The heading for subsection (d)(2)(A) of such section is
amended to read as follows: ``Computation of annuity.--''.
(b) Adjusted Supplemental Annuity.--Section 1457(b) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting
``the applicable percent''; and
[[Page 10778]]
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``The percent used for the computation shall be an even
multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in
the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning
on or before the date of the enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 15 percent
for months beginning after that date and before October 2004,
and 10 percent for months beginning after September 2004.''.
(c) Recomputation of Annuities.--(1) Effective on the first
day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
(A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United
States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed
under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by
subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be
recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in
effect if the percent applicable for that month under that
provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial
computation of the annuity; and
(B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457
of such title that commenced before that month and is payable
for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the
amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for
that month under that section, as amended by this section,
had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental
survivor annuity.
(2) The requirements for recomputation of annuities under
paragraph (1) apply with respect to the following months:
(A) The first month that begins after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(B) October 2004.
(d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for
Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense
shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments
made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection
(c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under
section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to
achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that
section.
______
GRAMM (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 392
Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Thurmond) proposed an
amendment to the bill, S. 1059, supra; as follows:
On page 284, strike all on line 7 through line 14 on page
286.
______
McCAIN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 393
Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Chafee) proposed
an amendment to the bill, S. 1059, supra; as follows:
On page 450, below line 25, add the following:
SEC. 2822. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT BASE CLOSURE ROUND
COMMENCING IN 2001.
(a) Commission Matters.--
(1) Appointment.--Subsection (c)(1) of section 2902 of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of
title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is
amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new clause (iv):
``(iv) by no later than May 1, 2001, in the case of members
of the Commission whose terms will expire on September 30,
2002.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or for 1995 in
clause (iii) of such subparagraph'' and inserting ``, for
1995 in clause (iii) of that subparagraph, or for 2001 in
clause (iv) of that subparagraph''.
(2) Meetings.--Subsection (e) of that section is amended by
striking ``and 1995'' and inserting ``1995, and 2001, and in
2002 during the period ending on September 30 of that year''.
(3) Funding.--Subsection (k) of that section is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph (4):
``(4) If no funds are appropriated to the Commission by the
end of the second session of the 106th Congress for the
activities of the Commission that commence in 2001, the
Secretary may transfer to the Commission for purposes of its
activities under this part that commence in that year such
funds as the Commission may require to carry out such
activities. The Secretary may transfer funds under the
preceding sentence from any funds available to the Secretary.
Funds so transferred shall remain available to the Commission
for such purposes until expended.''.
(5) Termination.--Subsection (l) of that section is amended
by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting ``September
30, 2002''.
(b) Procedures.--
(1) Force-structure plan.--Subsection (a)(1) of section
2903 of that Act is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary shall also submit to Congress a
force-structure plan for fiscal year 2002 that meets the
requirements of the preceding sentence not later than March
30, 2001.''.
(2) Selection criteria.--Subsection (b) of such section
2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and by no later than
March 1, 2001, for purposes of activities of the Commission
under this part that commence in 2001,'' after ``December 31,
1990,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(i) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and by no later
than April 15, 2001, for purposes of activities of the
Commission under this part that commence in 2001,'' after
``February 15, 1991,''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, or enacted on
or before May 15, 2001, in the case of criteria published and
transmitted under the preceding sentence in 2001'' after
``March 15, 1991''.
(3) Department of defense recommendations.--Subsection (c)
of such section 2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and March 1, 1995,''
and inserting ``March 1, 1995, and September 1, 2001,'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4)(A) In making recommendations to the Commission under
this subsection in 2001, the Secretary shall consider any
notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a
military installation that the government would approve of
the closure or realignment of the installation.
``(B) Notwithstanding the requirement in subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall make the recommendations referred to in
that subparagraph based on the force-structure plan and final
criteria otherwise applicable to such recommendations under
this section.
``(C) The recommendations made by the Secretary under this
subsection in 2001 shall include a statement of the result of
the consideration of any notice described in subparagraph (A)
that is received with respect to an installation covered by
such recommendations. The statement shall set forth the
reasons for the result.''; and
(D) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``paragraph (5)(B)''
and inserting ``paragraph (6)(B)''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``24 hours'' and
inserting ``48 hours''.
(4) Commission review and recommendations.--Subsection (d)
of such section 2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``or by no later than
February 1, 2002, in the case of recommendations in 2001,''
after ``pursuant to subsection (c),'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or after February 1,
2002, in the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after ``under
this subsection.''; and
(C) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting ``or by no later than
October 15 in the case of such recommendations in 2001,''
after ``such recommendations,''.
(5) Review by president.--Subsection (e) of such section
2903 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or by no later than
February 15, 2002, in the case of recommendations in 2001,''
after ``under subsection (d),'';
(B) in the second sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting
``or by no later than March 15, 2002, in the case of 2001,''
after ``the year concerned,''; and
(C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or by April 1, 2002,
in the case of recommendations in 2001,'' after ``under this
part,''.
(c) Closure and Realignment of Installations.--Section
2904(a) of that Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
``(3) carry out the privatization in place of a military
installation recommended for closure or realignment by the
Commission in a report in 2002 only if privatization in place
is a method of closure or realignment of the installation
specified in the recommendation of the Commission in the
report and is determined to be the most-cost effective method
of implementation of the recommendation;''.
(d) Relationship to Other Base Closure Authority.--Section
2909(a) of that Act is amended by striking ``December 31,
1995,'' and inserting ``September 30, 2002,''.
(e) Technical and Clarifying Amendments.--
(1) Commencement of period for notice of interest in
property for homeless.--Section 2905(b)(7)(D)(ii)(I) of that
Act is amended by striking ``that date'' and inserting ``the
date of publication of such determination in a newspaper of
general circulation in the communities in the vicinity of the
installation under subparagraph (B)(i)(IV)''.
(2) Other clarifying amendments.--
(A) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or
realignment'' after ``closure'' each place it appears in the
following provisions:
(i) Section 2905(b)(3).
(ii) Section 2905(b)(4)(B)(ii).
(iii) Section 2905(b)(5).
(iv) Section 2905(b)(7)(B)(iv).
(v) Section 2905(b)(7)(N).
(vi) Section 2910(10)(B).
(B) That Act is further amended by inserting ``or
realigned'' after ``closed'' each place in appears in the
following provisions:
[[Page 10779]]
(i) Section 2905(b)(3)(C)(ii).
(ii) Section 2905(b)(3)(D).
(iii) Section 2905(b)(3)(E).
(iv) Section 2905(b)(4)(A).
(v) Section 2905(b)(5)(A).
(vi) Section 2910(9).
(vii) Section 2910(10).
(C) Section 2905(e)(1)(B) of that Act is amended by
inserting ``, or realigned or to be realigned,'' after
``closed or to be closed''.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public
that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 10, 1999 at 9:30 a.m.
in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the report of
the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission.
Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements
should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call
Kelly Johnson at (202) 224-4971.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. ROBERTS. 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, May 25, for purposes of
conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 10
a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on
State Progress in Retail Electricity Competition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on environment and public works
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full
Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to
conduct a hearing on reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Liability and Compensation Act of 1980, Tuesday, May 25, 10
a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous
consent to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 25, 1999 beginning at 10
a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Tuesday, May 25, 1999 at 2:15 p.m. to hold a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Tuesday, May 25, 1999 at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the
Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on: ``Copyright Office
Report on Distance Education in the Digital Environment.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to
meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 25, for purposes
of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at
2:15 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S.
140, a bill to establish the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in the
State of New York as an affiliated area of the National Park System,
and for other purposes; S. 734, the National Discovery Trails Act of
1999; S. 762, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a feasibility study on the inclusion of the Miami Circle Biscayne
National Park; S. 938, a bill to eliminate restrictions on the
acquisitions of certain land contiguous to Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park, and for other purposes; S. 939, a bill to correct spelling errors
in the statutory designations of Hawaiian National Parks; S. 946, a
bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer
administrative jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the Home
of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site to the Archivist of the
United States for the construction of a visitor center; and S. 955, a
bill to allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for
addition to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously
authorized by law, by purchase.
subcommittee on near eastern and south asian affairs
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to
meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 25, 1999 at 10
a.m. to hold a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to promote awareness of
missing children and honor those who selflessly work to search and
rescue the thousands of children who disappear each year. As my
colleagues may know, today is recognized as ``National Missing
Children's Day.''
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice study, annually
there are over 114,000 attempted abductions of children by nonfamily
members, 4,500 child abductions reported to police, and 438,200
children who are lost, injured, or otherwise missing. These numbers are
truly cause for concern by all Americans.
As a parent, I believe local communities, schools, faith-based
organizations and law enforcement should be encouraged to work together
to protect the most vulnerable members of our society--children. From a
federal perspective, I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation to
reauthorize the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program through the next five years. The
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children operates under a
Congressional mandate and works in conjunction with the U.S. Department
of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice on Delinquency Prevention. I
know my colleagues would agree that the Center has an outstanding
record of safely recovering missing children across the country, and
most recently achieved a 91 percent recovery rate.
Mr. President, as we remember the many missing children across the
nation today, I want to especially recognize the relentless work and
effort to protect our nation's children by Minnesota's Jacob Wetterling
Foundation. The Foundation was established by Jerry and Patty
Wetterling after their son, Jacob, was abducted by a masked man at
gunpoint near the Wetterling home in St. Joseph, Minnesota. Today, the
Jacob Wetterling Foundation is a national, non-profit foundation
committed to preventing the exploitation of children through educating,
raising awareness and responding to families who are victims of
abduction.
Mr. President, our children represent our future and we must continue
our work to keep them safe. Again, I commend the numerous volunteers,
organizations, and government agencies who all work on a daily basis to
find missing children and prevent others from disappearing.
[[Page 10780]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RUTH A. GELLER
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President I rise today to pay a well-
deserved tribute to Ruth A. Geller, MSW on the occasion of her
retirement from the Connecticut Mental Health Center after 25 years of
service as a psychiatric social worker supervisor.
Ruth has demonstrated exceptional compassion, dedication, and
professionalism in caring for the severely, chronically mentally
impaired of Connecticut. As a mentor and teacher, Ruth has trained a
generation of mental health professionals with the same devotion she
has brought to her clinical work. As a result, Ruth has instilled in
them the ability to become respectful, empathetic mental health
providers.
I am proud to stand before the Senate to congratulate Ruth Geller
upon her retirement and thank her for an outstanding career which has
enhanced the lives of so many. I wish her continued success in the
years ahead.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO IRENE AUBERLIN
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the
late Irene Auberlin, the ``Mother Teresa'' of Detroit.
Mrs. Auberlin is the founder of World Medical Relief (WMR), an
organization which, to date, has distributed more than $500 million
worth of medical goods both in Detroit area, where she lived, and
abroad.
Mrs. Auberlin was a quiet home-maker until she saw a television
program about orphans in Korea in 1953. She provided supplies to the
nuns who ran the orphanage, thus beginning over 46 years of service to
the poor. Since then, WMR has sent food, medical equipment, and
supplies throughout the United States and to over 120 countries. In
1966, WMR began a monthly prescription program that still exists today,
providing medicine to elderly poor in the Detroit area.
Mrs. Auberlin received over 60 awards and commendations, including
The President's Volunteer Action Award and Silver Medal, presented to
her by President Reagan.
On behalf of the residents of Michigan, the United States, and
elsewhere, I want to thank Irene for all that she did to help those in
need.
____________________
NATIONAL BLUE RIBBON SCHOOLS IN MARYLAND
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that ten
elementary schools throughout Maryland have been named Blue Ribbon
School Award winners by the United States Department of Education.
These schools are among only 266 elementary schools nationwide to be
honored with this award, the most prestigious national school
recognition for public and private schools.
The designation as a Blue Ribbon School is a ringing endorsement of
the successful techniques which enable the students of these schools to
succeed and achieve. Over the past few years, I have made a commitment
to visit the Blue Ribbon Schools and have always been delighted to see
first hand the interaction between parents, teachers, and the
community, which strongly contributed to the success of the school. I
look forward to visiting each of these ten schools and congratulating
the students, teachers and staff personally for this exceptional
accomplishment.
According to the Department of Education, Blue Ribbon Schools have
been judged to be particularly effective in meeting local, state and
national goals. These schools also display the qualities of excellence
that are necessary to prepare our young people for the challenges of
the next century. Blue Ribbon status is awarded to schools which have
strong leadership; a clear vision and sense of mission that is shared
by all connected with the school; high quality teaching; challenging,
up-to-date curriculum; policies and practices that ensure a safe
environment conducive to learning; a solid commitment to family
involvement; evidence that the school helps all students achieve high
standards; and a commitment to share the best practices with other
schools.
After a screening process by each State Department of Education, the
Department of Defense Dependent Schools, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and the Council for American Private Education, the Blue Ribbon School
nominations were forwarded to the U.S. Department of Education. A panel
of outstanding educators from around the country then reviewed the
nominations, selected schools for site visits, and made recommendations
to Secretary of Education Richard Riley.
The ten winning Maryland elementary schools are as follows:
Ashburton Elementary School, located in Bethesda, is home to 515
students and 64 staff members which provide for a richly diverse school
community with an exemplary record of student achievement and an
outstanding academic program. This award also credits the SHINE
Program--Successful, Helpful, Imaginative, Neighborly, and
Enthusiastic--with recognizing students who participate positively in
the school community.
Brook Grove Elementary School, located in Olney, not only has a
commendable academic strategy, but also is recognized as a school that
encourages excellence in the arts and in athletics, and values
individuality and diversity as critical to the well-being of the
student body.
Our Lady of Mercy School is a co-educational Catholic school in
Potomac that combines traditions of academic excellence, intellectual
curiosity and fundamental moral and religious values in a successful
program that has almost half of its 283 students meeting the criteria
of giftedness set by the Institute for the Academic Advancement of
Youth.
Oak Hill Elementary School, the most culturally and economically
diverse school in the Severna Park area, prioritizes parental
involvement in the successful pursuit of quality education for its
students. The concept of the ``Oak Hill School Family'' aims to provide
a safe and nurturing school environment, a strong academic program and
a philosophy that encourages community involvement.
Salem Avenue Elementary School, located in Hagerstown, has made great
strides in the last decade and, as a leader in Washington County, is a
school of many ``firsts,'' including being the first Title 1 school to
receive a satisfactory or excellent rating in all areas of the Maryland
School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP); the first elementary
school to be named a Blue Ribbon School; the first to create and
appoint the position of Curriculum Coordinator; and the first to be
named a National Distinguished School.
Templeton Elementary School, located in Riverdale, is an award
winning Prince George's County school which has made dramatic gains on
the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). Templeton's
mission is to provide its diverse student body with the knowledge and
skills to be productive members of society.
Vienna Elementary School, located in Vienna, is a small, rural school
which draws from a large geographical area and is an integral part of
the community. With virtually no staff turnover and a strong School
Improvement Team, students, staff and parents form a close-knit
community and serve as a model in the district for student achievement,
staff commitment and participatory leadership, including development of
character and ethical judgment.
West Annapolis Elementary School, situated in downtown Annapolis, was
used as an example by the Maryland State Department of Education for
two videotapes highlighting outstanding teachers. This award also
credits West Annapolis' belief in the importance of a united school
community as evident in its concept of TEAM/excellence which works to
improve the teaching and learning environment in which students can
excel.
The Summit School is a non-profit school that was created 10 years
ago to promote literacy and school success among children with unique
educational needs, namely bright students that are disabled readers.
Summit, located in Edgewater, enables students
[[Page 10781]]
to come to understand their own unique learning styles by identifying
their strengths and weaknesses through a variety of individualized
strategies.
The Trinity School, located in Ellicott City is an independent, co-ed
Catholic school that was designated as an Exemplary School by the U.S.
Department of Education in 1990. Trinity offers a challenging
curriculum while also offering a variety of community outreach programs
to involve students and their families in extracurricular activities.
These ten elementary schools in the State of Maryland represent a
model for schools across the nation. Their hard work and dedication has
resulted in a tremendous achievement for the students, teachers,
parents and community. This committed partnership proves that a
concerned community can produce excellent results.
____________________
VIRGINIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONGRESSIONAL DINNER
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, Richard D. Fairbank, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Capital One Financial Corporation, delivered
remarks at the Virginia Chamber of Commerce Congressional Dinner last
month. Capital One, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, is one of
the fastest growing private employers in my state. Mr. Fairbank's
remarks offered invaluable insight into the challenges and
opportunities the technology revolution is producing in both the
private and public sectors, and I ask that they be printed in the
Record.
The remarks follow:
Remarks by Richard D. Fairbank, Virginia Chamber of Commerce
Congressional Dinner, April 29, 1999
Members of Congress, distinguished guests, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me first take the opportunity to thank the
Virginia Chamber for supporting Virginia's business
community. It is an honor to join you this evening to share a
bit of the Capital One story and give you my thoughts about
the challenges facing the Virginia business community as we
move into the 21st Century.
First, a comment about Virginia. What a wonderful state we
live in! I am reminded of that everyday. The irony is,
Virginia was not where I was supposed to live. I grew up in
California, and thought I would always live in California.
When I graduated from business school, I applied only to
California firms, except for one company in D.C., and only
because they were just about to start a San Francisco office.
When my wife and I came out here, we fell in love with
Virginia, and never went to that San Francisco office. So now
we've been Virginians for 18 years, and we're here to stay.
My wife and I and our four children live right here in
Fairfax County.
And our larger family--our COF family--now numbers 8,000
associates in Virginia--in Richmond, Chesterfield,
Fredericksburg and Northern Virginia. Virginians have a
wonderful blend of Southern charm and tradition mixed with a
very positive spirit that believes in possibility. It's a
magical combination. It's made Virginia a great home for COF.
Capital One's growth has at times surpassed our capacity to
hire here in Virginia, so we have expanded into Florida,
Texas, Washington State, Massachusetts and the UK. But our
first choice is always to grow as much as we can right here
at home. Just last year, we added 3,500 new jobs here in
Virginia. This year we've announced we're adding another
3,000 new jobs in Virginia, but truth be told, we'll probably
exceed that number significantly.
Tonight I've been asked to talk about how the business
world is changing, using Capital One as an example. I think
the story of Capital One is a story of what happens when a
band of believers fixates on a vision of how the world is
changing, and pours everything they have into getting there.
Today, Capital One is one of the fastest growing companies in
the country. But it wasn't always that way. In fact if you
had asked anyone 12 years ago to bet even one dime on Nigel
Morris and myself and the dream we had, you wouldn't have
found many takers. I know that for a fact. Because we were
out there asking. And they weren't taking.
Our dream was this. We believed information technology
could revolutionize the way marketing is done. The most basic
truth of marketing is that every person has unique needs and
wants. Yet from the beginning, companies have tended to
respond to those needs with a one-size fits-all approach,
because they can't accommodate the unique needs of thousands
or millions of customers. But we saw the possibility to
change all that. To use technology and scientific testing to
deliver the right product to the right customer at the right
time and at the right price--a strategy we call mass
customization. And we saw the credit card as a perfect
candidate for this strategy. Ten years ago, virtually every
credit card in the U.S. was priced at 19.8 percent interest
rate with a $20 fee. Yet people varied widely in their
default risk, their financial circumstances and their needs.
Our dream was to build a high-tech information-based
marketing company to change all that. The problem was we had
no money and no experience in the credit card business. We
needed a sponsor. So, Nigel and I embarked on a national
journey to every financial institution that would talk to us.
The good news is that we got audiences with the top
management of 20 of the top 25 banks in America. The bad news
is that every one of them rejected it. But finally, a year
into our journey, we found a sponsor right here in our
backyard. Signet Bank in Richmond.
And so Capital One was born. For years we worked to build
the business, to build the technology and operations to
customize decision-making at the individual account level.
Four years into it, we still had no success. Yet Signet never
lost faith, despite nearly going under themselves with real
estate loan problems. Finally, we cracked the code of mass
customizing credit cards. And in 1992 we launched credit
cards at dramatically lower prices for consumers with good
credit. And we've never looked back.
Today we have thousands of product variations for our
customers. Including products like our Miles One card that
gives mileage credit on any airline, with no blackout period,
and with a 9.9 percent fixed interest rate. We can price this
low because we use technology and information to make sure
that our low-risk customers don't have to subsidize high-risk
customers. By 1994, we had grown to 6 million customers.
Signet Bank spun off Capital One, and we became a fully
independent company.
But our dream was just beginning. Because we never defined
ourselves as a credit card company. We're a technology-based
marketing company. So, we have taken this very same strategy
and expanded into other financial products like deposits,
installment loans and auto loans. We've also taken our
strategy internationally to the UK and Canada so far. And, we
even entered the telecommunications industry, creating a
company called America One, where we are marketing wireless
phones. While everyone else markets wireless phones through
stores, we are selling direct, tailoring each offer to our
customers' needs. The strategy appears to be working. We are
now in 41 states. And America One is now the largest direct
marketer of wireless phones in the U.S. Our next frontier at
Capital One is the Internet, which is a perfect medium for
our strategy of information-based mass customization. We are
mobilizing a major effort to be a big player in the Internet.
So from credit cards to wireless phones, from the U.S. to the
UK, and from the mailbox to the Internet, we've been able to
keep the growth going at Capital One. We now have 18 million
customers, and are growing by 15,000 customers a day.
Capital One's success in many ways has come simply from
understanding and embracing the inexorable implications of
the technology revolution. First, that marketing will be
revolutionized. And second, that technology is changing the
leverage of the human mind. This insight has massive
implications for human resources. One hundred years ago, in
factories and farms, the smartest or most educated workers
were not necessarily the most productive. But the computer
and the Internet can take the human mind to a quantum new
level. In the technology age, the key asset in a company is
its knowledge capital.
And to us, this meant that our greatest imperative is
recruiting and developing incredibly talented workers. If
there's one thing that is talked about the most and delivered
upon the least, it is this--recruiting the best people. At
Capital One, we have made it the number one corporate
imperative. In fact, I believe that the single biggest reason
for Capital One's success is a totally fanatical commitment
to recruiting. It is the most important job for every
executive and manager in the company. The average executive
at Capital One spends about one full day a week recruiting.
It's an incredible commitment. Our future depends on it.
So that's the Capital One story. I believe that many of the
things I've said about Capital One have direct relevance to
Virginia and its challenges. Like Capital One, Virginia is
enjoying exceptional growth, fueled significantly by being a
leader in technology. The good news is that the entire
Commonwealth is benefiting from the booming economy. It seems
that economic expansions are announced every week in
Virginia. But Virginia cannot rest on its laurels. While
Virginia has done a good job at attracting high quality, high
salaried jobs providing unprecedented opportunities for all
Virginians, we continue to face many challenges that need
attention from both our political and business leaders. Let
me mention just a few . . .
The greatest challenge for Virginia's rapidly growing
companies is to attract and retain the most talented
employees who have the technical skills to lead our
businesses into the 21st century. There are nearly 25,000
unfilled technology related jobs in Northern
[[Page 10782]]
Virginia alone and the Department of Commerce predicts that
nearly every new job created from now on will require some
level of technology expertise. This poses the greatest threat
to Virginia's economic growth.
We must start with quality education. Virginia already has
world-class institutions of higher learning, and I am pleased
that Capital One is tapped into this talent. Many companies,
such as ours, are partnering with our university system to
help design curriculum and training for a multitude of jobs.
We also offer a full tuition reimbursement plan to every one
of our 11,000 associates to encourage them to seek continuing
education. Also, to help address our acute shortage of
technology workers, we offer our non-technical associates the
opportunity to be retrained and shifted into one of our many
unfilled technology jobs. I am pleased that many of our
associates have taken us up on these opportunities.
But Capital One can't get there from here simply by
training and developing our associates. It certainly will not
meet our long-term needs. We need to recruit on a massive
scale. Simply put, Virginia's universities are not producing
enough technology graduates to meet the demands of companies
like Capital One. This forces companies to look elsewhere to
meet their needs for technology workers. And elsewhere
includes overseas. Nations like India and China are producing
many more engineering and technology degrees than the United
States. Many of the leading technology companies are building
massive programming shops in those countries, sending the
programming specifications from the US. We need to reverse
that trend and work with our universities to produce more
technology graduates here at home.
However, this will not happen overnight. In the interim, in
order to meet our current needs, our immigration policies
must be flexible. Congress provided a small measure of help
last year by raising the cap on H1-B visas thereby allowing
more high tech workers from outside the United States to come
into the country. Clearly, this is a step in the right
direction. But, much more must be done if we are going to
meet the needs of Virginia's growing high-tech industry.
Growing up in the San Francisco mid-peninsula, I witnessed
firsthand the development of Silicon Valley--now the
technology capital of the world. The same thing can happen
here. We are well underway. In fact, the Internet revolution
has its roots in Virginia. Virginia is already the home to
more than 2,500 technology businesses that employ more than
250,000 people. It includes AOL, UUNET, and P-S-I Net. With
more than half the Internet traffic flowing through Virginia,
we must continue to expand on our reputation as a technology
center and the Internet hub of the United States. Let's build
upon our fast start.
While Virginia owns the infrastructure of the Internet,
with the exception of AOL and a few others, we do not have a
major presence in marketing e-commerce. That means more dot/
com companies. YAHOO!, Amazon.com, EBAY, Charles Schwab and
most other leading e-commerce firms are not located here in
Virginia. These businesses are redefining retail channels--
and we must make certain that Virginia cultivates and
attracts these types of companies. We need to be more than
the infrastructure backbone of the Internet. The growth of e-
commerce is just beginning. And already, it is affecting
everyone, everywhere, everyday. Business will never be the
same again.
And new economic realities lead to new political realities.
Our public policies must give this new technology and way of
doing business time to develop. For example, as the Internet
revolution is exploding, some have suggested that we create
taxes on Internet transactions. I believe that would be a big
mistake. I know that Governor Gilmore is currently leading a
Commission studying Internet taxation issues on the national
level. Their decisions can have a lot of impact on a rapidly
growing industry still in its infancy. With sound
legislation, such as the Internet Tax Freedom Act, companies
are better positioned to grow and attract consumers into this
new business channel.
All these new technologies also bring a need to act
responsibly with our customers' information. Information is
the lifeblood of companies like Capital One, who use it to
tailor products for the individual consumer at the best
possible price. It's why we have been able to help bring down
the cost of credit cards and other products--and simplify the
process of obtaining them. The same is true for the Richmond-
based grocery store UKROPS, Geico, EBAY and thousands of
other companies. We must find a balance between the clear
economic benefits that derive from access to information and
the responsibility we all owe to our customers to safeguard
their personal information. Companies need to lead the way.
Like many companies, Capital One has developed a
comprehensive privacy policy to ensure that our customers'
personal information is used appropriately with very clear
limitations. While we must be vigilant about consumers'
privacy, I believe that restrictive legislation in this area
would turn back the clock and actually hurt consumers.
We also must be prepared to meet the basic day-to-day
demands that a fast-growing economy will place on Virginia
and its communities. While technology and e-commerce are
making the world a smaller place, the reality is that people
will still need to get to work. With a booming national
economy and low unemployment, our workers have choices. If
they cannot get to and from their places of employment, these
highly skilled individuals will relocate. You can read the
survey results or simply talk to your employees:
transportation is most often cited as the number one quality-
of-life issue by most working people, especially here in
Northern Virginia. Thanks to the hard work of the Virginia
Delegation more Federal dollars are flowing to Virginia than
ever before for transportation. We must continue to work
together to address this issue.
So those are a few of my thoughts of the biggest challenges
and opportunities we face as we move into the 21st century.
The world is changing so fast, it's hard to make sense of it
all, and to know where we all fit in. We can't predict the
future. But, I believe that one can identify a few trends
that are absolutely inexorable. The story of Capital One is
an example of doing that. The key for Capital One has been to
see a few of those inexorable trends and try to get there
first. No matter what it took. Whether or not we had the
skills or market portion to make it happen. Because we had
destiny on our side.
Many people and many companies and many politicians don't
think this way. They tend to think incrementally. That's a
risky cause of action in a world that's changing so fast.
Virginia is in a great position to the lead the way into the
21st century. Let's make sure we think big and do what it
takes to get there. Thanks.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S.J. RES. 26
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I understand that S.J. Res. 26, introduced
earlier by Senator Smith of New Hampshire, is at the desk, and I ask
that it be read the first time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 26) expressing the sense of
Congress with respect to the court-martial conviction of the
late Rear Admiral Charles Butler McVay, III, and calling upon
the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the
final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object
to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The joint resolution will be read for the second time on the next
legislative day.
____________________
FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to consideration of H.R. 1183, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1183) to amend the Fastener Quality Act to
strengthen the protection against the sale of mismarked,
misrepresented, and counterfeit fasteners and eliminate
unnecessary requirements, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 1183) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MAY 26, 1999
Ms. SNOWE. 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, May 26. 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, and the time for the two
leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask
consent that the Senate then resume the DOD authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 10783]]
____________________
PROGRAM
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense
authorization bill at 9:30 a.m. and expect to debate an amendment by
Senator Brownback regarding Pakistan, to be followed by an amendment by
Senator Kerrey of Nebraska regarding the strategic nuclear development
system. Under a previous consent, at 11:45 a.m., the Senate will resume
consideration of the BRAC amendment. At least one vote will occur in
relation to the BRAC amendment at 1:45 p.m. Therefore, Senators should
expect the next vote to occur at 1:45 p.m. on Wednesday. Senators who
have amendments are urged to notify the two managers. It is the
intention of the leadership to complete action on this bill prior to
the scheduled Memorial Day recess.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:52 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, May 26, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 10784]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
May 25, 1999
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, May 25, 1999
The House met at 9 a.m.
____________________
MORNING HOUR DEBATES
The SPEAKER. 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
25 minutes, and each Member other than the majority and minority
leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes each, but in no
event shall debate be continued beyond 9:50 a.m.
____________________
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chabot). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert)
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTERT. On behalf of the elected entire Republican leadership, I
rise today to talk about the efforts of the House to respond to the
national crisis surrounding violence in our schools.
Last week's shooting in Conyers, Georgia, only reinforced the fears
of many parents about the safety of the schools which their children
attend. Studies show that our Nation's schools on average are safer
than ever, but average means nothing to the mothers and fathers who
send their children to school every day. They want more from us, and we
will provide more.
Last week the other body passed legislation that responded in part to
the situation in our schools. Part of that legislative response
included gun control legislation.
We support commonsense legislation that keeps guns out of the hands
of unsupervised children. We support tightening laws to bring
uniformity between gun shows and gun shops. We support instant
background checks at gun shows.
We intend to bring these measures to the floor of the House, and I
believe they will pass, but passing these measures is only part of the
solution.
As I said on this floor last week, our children need to learn the
differences between right and wrong. They need moral instruction, and
they need a culture that reinforces positive values that help create a
safer and more secure society.
What happened in Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia, are
genuine national tragedies. It is natural that they should spur us to
action, but it is wrong for anyone to simply try to score political
points as a result of these tragedies.
I take a back seat to no one in this Congress when it comes to a
desire to make our schools safer. I specifically spoke about safer
schools from this well in my first speech as Speaker.
I taught high school for 16 years before entering public life. My two
boys graduated from public high school not that long ago. My wife goes
to work every day in a public school, just as she has for the last 33
years. I want her and the children she teaches to be safe.
Last week, in consultation with the minority leadership, we developed
a timetable for consideration of a juvenile justice bill that would
help make our schools safer. It was a very constructive meeting. I
thought we had mapped out a very responsible, straightforward approach
to handling this issue by prompt action of the authorizing committee,
not riders on unrelated appropriation bills.
Unfortunately, it appears that despite the best efforts at the
leadership level, more partisan elements are continuing to press for
quicker, ill-considered action this week. We continue to believe, just
as we proposed last week, that we should consider this bill in a timely
yet responsible way.
In order to responsibly expedite matters, I asked the Committee on
the Judiciary to move up its hearing on this issue by 3 weeks. They
agreed, and will start hearings this Thursday.
I asked the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to be prepared to mark
up legislation the first week we get back from the Memorial Day
district work period so it could be ready for the floor the next week.
Again, this was much faster than originally proposed. He has agreed to
do so.
Later today he and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) will announce an outline of our
youth violence legislation.
This legislation will focus on making our schools and our streets
safer by prosecuting those who break the current gun laws. It will keep
lawbreakers in jail longer. It will enact a zero tolerance policy for
children who bring guns to school, and it will make sure that dangerous
juveniles will not be able to buy guns lawfully when they become
adults, and that we have open and complete juvenile records to help us
keep guns out of their hands.
When we consider this legislation, the House will be able to work its
will regarding certain provisions from the Senate package, just as I
had assured the minority leader last week.
The House will vote on trigger locks, background checks at gun shows,
and closing the gun purchasing loophole. We will expedite this
legislation, but we will not force it through the system without the
proper consideration of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Some of my colleagues, sensing an advantage, may try to go outside of
the rules of the House and attach ill-considered riders to legislation
not relevant to the juvenile justice issue. That would be a mistake. I
know emotions are running high, but let us be honest about this. Even
if we did pass legislation this week, it would still be the middle of
June at the earliest before we could send a bill to the White House.
Pretending otherwise, and promising the victims of these terrible
tragedies something else, does a tremendous disservice not only to us
and to our institution, but to the very people we are trying to
protect.
Our Nation's schoolchildren deserve to attend the safest, most secure
schools that we can provide, and the parents of our children should
rest secure in the knowledge that everything is being done within our
powers, both as citizens and legislators, to create precisely that
environment.
This is not the time to play on the fears of our most vulnerable.
This is the time for aggressive yet responsible leadership, one in
which we can think carefully and examine all of the issues before we go
off half-informed, searching for the snappiest sound bite rather than
working together to develop the best legislation that we can.
This is one of those rare times when the national consensus demands
that we act, but it does not require us to rush to judgment, to risk
compounding the situation by stampeding toward what sounds like the
best way to score points against each other. We can do better than
that, and I am determined to see that we will.
By cooperating, we can get a bill to the White House promptly, while
making sure that the policies are ready to be enforced when schools
reopen in September. The Nation's eyes have turned towards us, looking
for responsible leadership. We must resist the temptation to score
political points at the expense of the lives and families of our
Nation's children.
[[Page 10785]]
Demagoguery for the sake of partisan advantage will not serve the
country well, nor will it produce the best legislative solution
possible. We have the opportunity to rise above partisanship and do
ourselves and our Nation proud. I appeal to all the Members not to let
this opportunity slip away.
We have responsible legislation and it is ready to go. It can be made
better. Rushing it to the floor this week will not result in a better
product in the long run. Let us come together, move forward, and
develop the best legislation we can so that all Americans can take
pride in how we respond.
____________________
THE FUTURE AMERICAN FLAG WILL HAVE 51 STARS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Myrick). 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. Madam Speaker, when the House of Representatives
debated legislation on Puerto Rico's self-determination, opponents
argued that Puerto Ricans had a different culture, too alien from the
rest of the Nation to become a partner.
But they were wrong. The ones that are not mainstream are those that
subscribe to a nativist mindset. Have they listened to the radio? Have
they watched a ballgame? Have they checked out who is doing art for the
Treasury Department, or have they read Time Magazine lately?
Last week's cover of Time featured Puerto Rican pop star Ricky
Martin, who boasts the number one song in America. The same article
highlighted two other Puerto Rican pop culture success stories,
vocalists Mark Anthony and actress-singer Jennifer Lopez.
Last year, baseball's American League recognized Puerto Rican Juan
``Igor'' Gonzalez of the Texas Rangers as its most valuable player, and
11-year-old Laura Hernandez from Puerto Rico is this year's First Place
National Winner of the United States Savings Bond Poster Contest.
Right here next to Washington, D.C., in the Goddard Space Center,
there are over 40 engineers and scientists who have come from Puerto
Rico. They graduated from MIT; not Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, but the Mayaguez Institute of Technology.
Time's May 24th cover story states, ``We have seen the future. It
looks like Ricky Martin. It sings like Mark Anthony. It dances like
Jennifer Lopez. Que bueno.'' I, too, have seen the future, and I saw
our flag with 51 stars. Que bueno.
____________________
THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about an
important issue for everyone in this country. It is social security.
Everybody that is now receiving social security is concerned when
Congress starts talking about changes in social security, because the
fact is that one-third of the individuals that are now receiving social
security depend on that social security check for 90 percent or more of
their retirement income, a huge dependency. So it is easy to understand
why seniors get nervous.
Everybody that is near retirement age is concerned, because they have
planned their retirement and the fact is that social security is
running out of money. Those individuals under 55 years of age are the
generation most at risk, because they may be asked to spend a lot more
paying for the retirement benefits of those that retired before them.
This week we are going to discuss what has been called a lockbox for
social security. It does not fix social security, but it provides that
Congress promises not to spend the social security trust fund surpluses
for other government programs. It is a good start, but make no mistake,
it does nothing to change the fundamentals of the programs and fix
social security in the long run.
Briefly, let me describe, what the problems of social security are.
When we started the social security program in 1934, it was developed
as a pay-as-you-go program, where existing current workers paid in
their social security tax for the benefits of existing current
retirees, so essentially no savings. The social security taxes went in
one week, and by the end of the week they were sent out in benefits to
retirees.
The system worked very well in the early stages because there were 42
people working for every 1 retiree receiving those tax benefits. By
1950, the number of people working went down to 17 people working,
sending in their social security taxes for every one retiree. Today it
is 3 people working, sending in their social security taxes, for every
retiree.
The estimate is that by 2030, there are only going to be 2 people
working. So what we are asking those 2 people to do, without changes in
the social security structure, without changes in the system, we are
asking those two workers to try to earn and produce enough for their
families plus one retiree; almost impossible.
The Federal Government, since it continues to raise taxes, and it has
raised social security taxes 36 times since 1976, more often than once
a year. Today 75 percent of our workers pay more in the social security
tax than they do in income tax.
But as government raised those taxes on workers, they took the extra
money coming in above and beyond what was needed for benefit payments
for retirees and the families and the disabled and they spent the money
on other government programs.
{time} 0915
What that has done is dig us a $700 billion IOU to future retirees
that government, that Congress, that the President has no idea how to
pay back.
I plead with my colleagues and, Madam Speaker, I plead with the
American people to look at Social Security, look at how it is going to
affect their lives and the future if Congress and the President is not
willing to step up to the plate and deal with the serious problems of
Social Security.
I have a proposal that I will be introducing in the next week that,
provided we start slowing down some of the benefits for those high-
income retirees and use some of that money for private investment
accounts, to put that money into individual accounts so those
individuals own that money, instead of Congress spending it on other
programs.
Let me just finish by saying what tremendously complicates and should
concern all of us in terms of how we deal with Social Security is a
Supreme Court decision. In fact, two Supreme Court decisions. The
Supreme Court has said there is no entitlement for Social Security
benefits; that there is no relationship between the taxes we pay in and
our right to receive any Social Security check when we retire. That
means that the young generations, those under 55 years old, are
completely dependent on future politicians deciding how much they might
cut their benefits.
And just one last word, Madam Speaker. The longer we put this off,
the more drastic the solution. Let us do it, let us get at it, and let
us deal with it.
____________________
CONGRESS OWES AMERICAN PUBLIC LEGISLATION ON GUN SAFETY PRIOR TO
MEMORIAL DAY RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Myrick). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I listened to the Speaker of the House
this morning tell us that we cannot pass gun safety legislation in this
body before we leave for the Memorial Day break for vacation. We owe it
to the American people, to American families, to move on this
legislation before we go home. We need to work on the people's
timetable and not on the congressional timetable.
[[Page 10786]]
To delay this issue is politics. That is what this is about.
We have 13 children in the United States who die every single day
because of gun violence. If this is not an emergency, I do not know
what is an emergency. This House of Representatives has risen to
occasions where there have been crises in this country. We can move on
a dime. We can pass legislation in 24 hours or less if we have the will
to do it.
The juvenile justice bill has been sitting in committee for the last
3 to 4 weeks. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It can be passed
in a heartbeat if we have the will to do it. We have to pass gun safety
legislation in our country if we are going to meet the pleas and the
cries of American families today.
I saw a grandmother yesterday in my district in Connecticut. She
lives in Connecticut, her family is in Indiana. And she said to me,
``Ms. DeLauro, when you go back, please pass gun safety legislation. My
two grandchildren were evacuated from their schools just last week.''
And I am not the only one who is hearing the plea of the American
public. Let us do what is responsible, let us respond to American
families.
Last week the other Chamber did the right thing. They passed common-
sense gun safety legislation. The House of Representatives this week
has that opportunity. Let us take up this legislation and pass fair and
sensible measures that we, in fact, know will save lives.
There are some who want to wait until mid-June. I say we have waited
too long. We have done nothing despite repeated tragedies in our
schools, and we sit idly by while, as I said, 13 children are killed by
guns every single day.
Youth violence is a complex problem. It requires several answers. We
need parental involvement, safe schools, guidance counselors, mental
health services, and less violence in our media. But gun safety laws
that protect children are part of a sensible response to a crisis that
is killing our kids in the United States.
I call upon the Republican leadership, I call upon the Speaker of the
House, to schedule that vote this week. Like the other Chamber, we must
ensure that firearms are sold with child safety locks, that we have
background checks at gun shows, and that a person is 21 years old
before he or she buys a gun.
Let us take these steps. Our families, our children are relying on
us, those of us who have been sent here to do the people's business.
Let us take the people's House and let us be responsive to the American
public this week, when they are in need of knowing that, in fact, we
can represent them and their families and their children in this body.
That is what our responsibility is this week.
My God, I hope that we are up to the task in this body.
____________________
HOUSE SHOULD VOTE ON THREE ELEMENTS OF SENATE GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION
PRIOR TO MEMORIAL DAY RECESS
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. Madam Speaker, I too rise out of a note of optimism
and, frankly, a little sadness, having listened to the Speaker's
comments on the floor of this House.
I have been in Congress only 3 years, but over the course of those 3
years we have been attempting repeatedly to have the Republican
leadership allow us the opportunity to vote on simple, common-sense
approaches that will make a difference for the epidemic of gun violence
in this country. We, in fact, know that it will make a difference.
There are about six times that I have taken to the well of this
Chamber after tragic shootings, not to try to take advantage of them,
but thinking that for a moment there might be an opportunity that this
would touch the conscience of the people who control what the Members
of this body will be able to vote upon.
Nine times since I have been in Congress there have been multiple
shooting deaths on school campuses around this country. One of them,
tragically, was in my State of Oregon. I do not know how anybody who
looks in the eyes of the families who have suffered this tragedy, who
have looked in their souls to realize that we have taken steps in this
Congress to deal with things like auto safety, yet we will not take the
same simple approach to try and make a difference to reduce the carnage
from gun violence for young people.
The concept of a livable community, from where I sit, is what the
Federal Government is about. It ought to be a partnership with State
governments, local governments, with the local communities, school
districts, to try to make sure that when children go out the door in
the morning that they are safe, that the family is economically secure
and they are healthy.
Gun violence has a wrenching impact on all three of those factors.
The economic costs are staggering, costing billions of dollars each
year for the thousands who are dead and maimed, victimized directly and
indirectly. It has a significant impact in terms of public safety and
crime, and it certainly makes a difference in terms of people's sense
of security.
In the last Congress we pleaded just to act on the child access
protection legislation. Give us a chance to vote on it. Fifteen States
have enacted it, including the State of Florida, the home State of the
Chair of the Subcommittee on Violence, and it has made a difference in
terms of making children safer.
I would think that, at a minimum, the Members of this body ought to
come forward and demand that we vote at least on the three elements
that are in the Senate legislation, pass those things out today, make
that progress real; then we can come back after the recess and deal
with the Speaker's more deliberative approach on a longer-range term.
We have legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
McCarthy) that a number of people on both sides of the aisle,
Republicans and Democrats, people of conscience, have signed that could
be the vehicle that would deal comprehensively with these concerns.
I have legislation that I will be advancing that deals with making
sure that the Product Safety Commission spends as much attention with
real guns as it does with toy guns; that we would extend the
prohibition against criminals having access to weapons under the Brady
bill to others who have demonstrated a consistent pattern of violent
behavior. This is overwhelmingly supported by the American public.
And last, but not least, that the Federal Government become a leader
in personalizing guns to make sure that, for example, they cannot be
used, the law enforcement service revolvers cannot be used against that
man or woman in uniform. The Federal Government has a chance to make a
huge difference in advancing this technology.
I find it a little ironic that the Speaker takes to the well of this
Chamber urging caution and arguing against extraneous riders when we
just passed an absolute abomination of a spending bill that was
supposedly for the defense of our troops in Kosovo and, instead,
included everything from reindeer to mining regulations. When it comes
to special interests, we are willing to make exceptions, but not when
it comes to our children.
I think our children ought to be the special interests. We ought to
come forward with comprehensive legislation and we ought to do it now.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until 10 a.m.
Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 27 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until 10 a.m.
[[Page 10787]]
____________________
{time} 1000
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Sununu) at 10 a.m.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend James David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer:
Let us pray using the words of Psalm 147.
``Praise the Lord!
``How good it is to sing praises to our God; for He is gracious, and a
song of praise is fitting.
``The Lord builds up Jerusalem; He gathers the outcasts of Israel.
``He heals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds.
``He determines the numbers of the stars; He gives to all of them their
names.
``Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond
measure.
``The Lord lifts up the downtrodden; He casts the wicked to the ground.
``The Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in
his steadfast love.'' Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. FOLEY led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain 15 one-minute
speeches on each side.
____________________
NUCLEAR SECRETS STOLEN UNDER OUR NOSES WHILE ADMINISTRATION DOES
NOTHING
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today we will release the Cox report on
Chinese spying activities and the impact on national security. But I
say today, rather than blame the Chinese, we should reflect on our own
lax standards and security.
Do the initials ``CIA'' ring a bell? We spend billions on similar
activities around the world, but we should be more concerned with
protecting our own vital national security.
If I were the White House today reading some of the headlines,
``China Stole Nuclear Secrets for Bombs, White House Seeks to Minimize
that Type of Problem,'' then I would want to change the subject, too. I
would want to talk about campaign finance reform. I would want to talk
about gun control in America. I would want to do anything to change the
tone and tenor of what has occurred in the United States under this
administration.
We have given up valuable secrets, valuable technology, right under
our noses. We were informed about it. Yet, the President denied anybody
even told him anything relative to these secrets being stolen. Wake up,
America. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
____________________
BRING JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL TO THE FLOOR NOW
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, sending one's child to school should not
take an act of courage. When children have died, when students have
been shot sitting in class or studying at the library, when schools and
communities have been torn apart, and when every American parent now
worries when they send their children off to school, it is time for us
to act. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Not next month. Now. Today.
There is a juvenile justice bill ready for us to consider that at
least begins to address the school violence issue. Why will the Speaker
not take up this bill? Is it because the NRA does not want him to? Is
it because the far right in his party will not let him?
Whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough. With 13
children dying each day from guns and with that gun violence spilling
into our schools, his reasons are not good enough.
Let us protect our children and bring up the juvenile justice bill
today. Not tomorrow. Not next month. Not another day. Not another life.
But today.
____________________
SUPPORT MISSING, EXPLOITED AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN'S ACT
(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, in this National Missing Children's
Week, I urge my colleagues to support S. 249, the Missing, Exploited
and Runaway Children's Act.
In my own district, Jimmy Ryce and Shannon Melendi were preyed upon
by monsters.
Jimmy was abducted, raped, killed, and dismembered as he walked home
from his school bus stop. Jimmy's parents channeled their grief into
the establishment of the Jimmy Ryce Center.
Shannon disappeared from a softball field and was never seen again.
Shannon's parents have taken their daughter's case to the public,
pushing for stronger laws to keep sexual predators off the streets.
Shannon's father, Luis, said, ``What happened to us cannot be
changed, but because of what happened to us, changes can be made.''
Passage of this bill will help protect our children from the
predators who prey on our most innocent victims.
____________________
AMERICANS INSIST ON PEACEFUL NEGOTIATIONS, NOT CONTINUED BOMBING
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, NATO's deliberate bombing and knocking out
of electric systems and water systems throughout Serbia takes the war
to a new low.
NATO is assigning collective guilt to the entire population of
Serbia. NATO is then exacting retribution against that civilian
population. Violence cannot be redemptive.
NATO, whoever NATO is, does not represent this Congress, which voted
against the bombing. The American people are opposed to this bombing.
People want to know what they can do.
On Sunday night in Cleveland, 400 people marched in a driving rain
along the city's largest bridge, a mile and a half procession for
peace, to protest the bombing, to protest the ethnic cleansing, and to
make a strong statement that we believe that the only way to resolve
this is through peaceful negotiations. I say it is time to continue to
insist that that is the way that we resolve this war.
____________________
COX REPORT RELEASED; IT IS ABOUT TIME
(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, ``The Phantom Menace'' is the title to the
new popular Star Wars movie. But it might also be an apt description of
the Chinese espionage efforts against the United States as outlined in
the Cox Report.
Unlike this popular movie, however, this Chinese espionage is not
fiction,
[[Page 10788]]
and it may have far-reaching national security consequences long into
the future.
It has taken nearly 5 months of struggle and arguing with the Clinton
administration to release the Cox Report. Mr. Speaker, for myself and
the many concerned Nevadans that I represent, all I can say is, it is
about time.
It is about time that the American people found out if China's
nuclear arsenal was built from the genius of the American people, on
the backs of the American taxpayer.
It is about time that the Americans learn if the U.S. nuclear weapons
labs will meet even minimum security standards some time next year.
But it is ultimately about time that this administration accepts
responsibility for its years of inaction in this unfortunate situation,
and has the intestinal fortitude to make the appropriate changes.
I yield back this Chinese spy menace, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully
today the phantoms will be revealed. It is about time.
____________________
CALLING FOR RESIGNATION OF SANDY BERGER
(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, the fact is Sandy Berger is our national
security advisor. The fact is Sandy Berger was once China's chief
lobbyist in America. The fact is now there is a hole in our national
security so big we could throw Berger and all our secrets all the way
to China nonstop. Beam me up.
I am not accusing Sandy Berger of any wrongdoing. But for the good of
America, Sandy Berger should resign as our national security advisor.
Sandy Berger is very close to China. In Washington, perception becomes
reality.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back any secrets we have left.
____________________
MORE QUESTIONS ARISE ABOUT WHO KNEW WHAT WHEN REGARDING CHINESE
ESPIONAGE
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the long-awaited Cox Report on Chinese
espionage becomes public today, and we already know many of the
stunning details about the loss of our most sensitive nuclear secrets.
The President's press secretary says this goes back 20 years and
there is no Democrat or Republican face on it. He is using the
``everybody does it'' defense. The Energy Secretary has cautioned us
not to overreact.
But how should we react to the worst spy case in American history? It
is clear that Clinton-Gore administration did not react at all after
this was discovered in 1995. Why wasn't the President briefed on this
in 1995, in 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999? If he was, why was nothing done?
Attorney General Janet Reno is being set up to be the scapegoat in
this scandal, but there are a lot more questions which the Clinton
administration must answer about who knew it and when they knew it.
____________________
NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY
(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying about
there being a special God for children. Certainly we would like to
think that someone is watching over our young people, protecting them
from harm. But, tragically, we know this is not the case.
Our community in the central coast of California lost a beautiful 13-
year-old girl last year. That forever changed the lives of the Williams
family and the thousands of local volunteers who donated thousands of
hours searching for us.
As innocently as many of our children do every day, Christina took
the family dog for a walk on June 2, 1998. Seven months later, her
parents' worst nightmare came true when her body was discovered January
12, 1999 three miles from the Williams home. The day Christina
Williams' body was found was one of the darkest days I have seen on the
central coast of California.
Her family and friends said good-bye and vowed never to forget their
daughter, sister, and friend. We had to learn to turn our anger and
pain into a mission to make our community a safer place to raise our
children. From our effort can hopefully come a larger recognition/
realization that if we lose one of our children to violence, our
society is morally weaker, for we can only imagine the potential that a
child had to offer that society.
I wear this ribbon as we observe National Missing Children's Day.
I am wearing this white ribbon as a symbol as we observe National
Missing Children's Day. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family
of Christina Williams and to each and every parent and family who has
lost a child and pledge my efforts to be a protector of our nation's
children.
____________________
CHINESE THEFT OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED THREAT BY A GENERATION
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Rosenbergs were executed for giving the
former Soviet Union secret information which allowed them to advance
their atomic weapons program by 5 years.
The Chinese theft of nuclear weapons technology which has recently
occurred under this administration has advanced the threat to our
Nation by a generation.
This administration loves to say we have to do this, we have to do
that for the children. Think of how much American children's lives have
been endangered by this administration because of its lax security
measures.
Campaign contributions from the head of the Chinese military
intelligence to the Clinton administration; and this administration's
response, we need campaign finance reform. They do not even follow the
laws in the books that we have now.
Now the Clinton administration screams for gun control. Yet, they
invite Chinese arms dealers to coffees at the White House, yes, for
campaign donations. Unbelievable.
____________________
SUPPORT SAFE PARKS ACT OF 1999
(Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an
important bill, the Safe Parks Act of 1999.
Mr. Speaker, our national parks are not as safe as we would expect
them to be. In 1997, there were over 550 reported sex offenses in our
national parks. Even more disturbing, 1997 saw 33 forceful rapes and 11
attempted rapes in those same national parks. That is a rape or
attempted rape about every 8 days on Federal lands that are supposed to
be safe havens for our families.
That is why I am introducing the Safe Parks Act today. It is a simple
bill, barring any convicted sex offender from entering our U.S. parks.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Missing Children's Day, please join
me in supporting this measure to help defend the sanctity of our
Federal parks for our kids.
____________________
NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Small Business
Week. I rise in recognition of the important role that small businesses
play in our Nation. Small businesses are vital to our economy and our
communities. Just listen to some of these facts.
[[Page 10789]]
{time} 1015
They account for 99.7 percent of the employers in our Nation; they
employ 53 percent of the private work force and are responsible for 50
percent of the private gross domestic product in America.
Despite these enormous contributions, small businesses have to
struggle under the weight of excessive taxation and unnecessary
regulation handed down by the Federal Government. Clearly, I believe
the time has come for Congress and the President to provide some relief
to small business owners by cutting taxes and reining in overzealous
regulators.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to work with both sides, all my colleagues, to
promote an agenda that strengthens small business and creates new
economic opportunities for the American people.
____________________
SCORE
(Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague who just
spoke is emphasizing Small Business Week. This is Small Business Week.
It is a time to celebrate the entrepreneurs that make the Nation's
engine run. I want to take this opportunity to recognize a group of
people that serve as that engine's mechanics, the Service Corps of
Retired Executives, known as SCORE, which is celebrating their 35th
anniversary this year.
SCORE is made up of a group of retired business executives. They
volunteer their time and business expertise to counsel and advise our
Nation's small business and entrepreneurs-to-be. With well over 50
percent of all new businesses failing within the first 6 years,
counseling early on can make a difference between success and failure
of a new business. SCORE's free counseling service does that job and it
does it well.
In particular, I want to recognize the 166 SCORE volunteers in
Colorado. Colorado SCORE counselors worked nearly 15,000 hours last
year in support of the Colorado business community. Their support for
Colorado's businesses are appreciated, and I encourage them to keep up
the good work.
____________________
MILK PRICES IN MINNESOTA SHOULD BE SET BY MARKET
(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, shortly after the hammer and sickle came
down for the last time over the Kremlin, a business publication ran a
column entitled, ``Markets Are More Powerful Than Armies'' and the 75-
year experiment with government-fixed prices came to an end.
But, Mr. Speaker, for 60 years we have had a convoluted milk
marketing order system whereby a farmer's milk is priced based on how
far they are from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The closer they are, the less
they get. It makes no economic sense. Prices are fixed based on what
the milk goes into and where it comes from.
Mr. Speaker, if the Russians are willing to let the market set the
price of milk in Moscow, maybe we should try it in Minnesota.
____________________
WILL CHINESE ESPIONAGE SCANDAL BE DISMISSED?
(Mr. SCHAFFER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, on March 19th of this year, the President
stated, in response to a question, ``To the best of my knowledge, no
one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the
Chinese against the labs, during my presidency.''
Sorry, to have to ask this, but is that true? Chinese espionage was
discovered in 1995.
Was the President not briefed on this in 1995?
Did no one tell him in 1996?
Was the President not told about this in 1997?
During all of 1998, did no one brief the President about these
extremely grave matters?
Did the President not read the November 1998 report on Chinese
espionage at the Energy Department labs?
Did the President not see the Cox report delivered to him in January
of this year?
Did he forget that, in fact, he had been briefed about the most
serious espionage case since the Rosenbergs many, many times?
Why the denial?
Will the other side simply dismiss this scandal too, saying, ``Hey,
everybody lies about national security''?
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF SCHOOL SAFETY HOTLINE ACT OF 1999
(Mr. TANCREDO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to talk about the
horrible tragedies of the Columbine shootings, though they linger in
all of our minds. Rather I would like to speak of the good that has
come from the ashes of this horrid event.
All around my home community of Littleton, Colorado, we have seen a
spirit of coming together. In Littleton our churches have been crowded
to the walls with those turning to their faith for answers. Across my
district, people of all colors, classes and backgrounds have embraced
in the comfort of a mutual loss.
Unfortunately, many children still do not feel safe to go to school.
As the school year ends, attendance rates across the district are still
horribly low. Students and parents feel helpless in controlling the
safety of their learning environment.
In Denver, on Friday, we announced another coming together. We
brought together leaders from business, State and local governments
into a partnership to create the School Safety Hotline, an anonymous
hotline for students, parents and teachers to report violent or
threatening behavior to authorities.
It is my sincere hope that this initiative will give our students a
sense they can control the safety of their environment by calling in to
report threatening behavior. For that reason, I would like to offer the
School Safety Hotline Act of 1999.
This bill will allow state and local agencies all across the country
to apply for federal grants to help create and maintain public-private
partnership hotlines similar to ours in Colorado. Furthermore, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to encourage all of my colleagues from both sides
of the aisle to support this modest, but important, legislation. I ask
my colleagues to use this legislation as the first step to reach out to
your own community and business leaders, so that we may give back to
our young students the feeling that they can do something to ensure a
safe and healthy learning environment.
____________________
WHY IS ADMINISTRATION DENYING KNOWLEDGE OF NUCLEAR ESPIONAGE
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed today. If we go back
to, I guess, the 1976 presidential debates between President Ford and
President Carter, one of the questions asked of Jimmy Carter was what
he thought was the biggest issue, at which point he quoted his
daughter, Amy, and said, ``nuclear war.''
Well, I am here to say Amy Carter was right, nuclear war is, because
we are giving nuclear warheads and secrets to China, which has not
exactly been our staunchest ally over the years.
The W-88, which is one of the most powerful nuclear warheads in
history, is now in the hands of the Chinese Communists despite the fact
that the Deputy Intelligence Security Officer at the Department of
Energy, as long as 3 years ago, warned the administration this was
going on.
[[Page 10790]]
Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser, was told in April 1996. The
President was informed July 1997. The President was informed again in
November 1998, and then in January this year. And yet, as late as
March, he was denying it and saying nothing happened on his watch.
There are two big issues here: Number one, what happened? Which
should scare the death out of any American. And number two is, why did
the administration deny this? This is not a partisan debate. This is a
scary debate. And I was glad when Democrat liberal Senator Torricelli
called for the resignation of Janet Reno.
It is time for bipartisan support, and I hope the Democrats will join
us on this one because America and America's children depend on it.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to the provisions of
clause 8, 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 later today.
____________________
MISSING, EXPLOITED, AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN PROTECTION ACT
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 249) to provide funding for the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 249
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 ``Missing, Exploited, and
Runaway Children Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN.
(a) Findings.--Section 402 of the Missing Children's
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) for 14 years, the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children has--
``(A) served as the national resource center and
clearinghouse congressionally mandated under the provisions
of the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984; and
``(B) worked in partnership with the Department of Justice,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the
Treasury, the Department of State, and many other agencies in
the effort to find missing children and prevent child
victimization;
``(10) Congress has given the Center, which is a private
non-profit corporation, access to the National Crime
Information Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System;
``(11) since 1987, the Center has operated the National
Child Pornography Tipline, in conjunction with the United
States Customs Service and the United States Postal
Inspection Service and, beginning this year, the Center
established a new CyberTipline on child exploitation, thus
becoming `the 911 for the Internet';
``(12) in light of statistics that time is of the essence
in cases of child abduction, the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in February of 1997 created a new
NCIC child abduction (`CA') flag to provide the Center
immediate notification in the most serious cases, resulting
in 642 `CA' notifications to the Center and helping the
Center to have its highest recovery rate in history;
``(13) the Center has established a national and
increasingly worldwide network, linking the Center online
with each of the missing children clearinghouses operated by
the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as
well as with Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon,
France, and others, which has enabled the Center to transmit
images and information regarding missing children to law
enforcement across the United States and around the world
instantly;
``(14) from its inception in 1984 through March 31, 1998,
the Center has--
``(A) handled 1,203,974 calls through its 24-hour toll-free
hotline (1-800-THE-LOST) and currently averages 700 calls per
day;
``(B) trained 146,284 law enforcement, criminal and
juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals in child
sexual exploitation and missing child case detection,
identification, investigation, and prevention;
``(C) disseminated 15,491,344 free publications to citizens
and professionals; and
``(D) worked with law enforcement on the cases of 59,481
missing children, resulting in the recovery of 40,180
children;
``(15) the demand for the services of the Center is growing
dramatically, as evidenced by the fact that in 1997, the
Center handled 129,100 calls, an all-time record, and by the
fact that its new Internet website (www.missingkids.com)
receives 1,500,000 `hits' every day, and is linked with
hundreds of other websites to provide real-time images of
breaking cases of missing children;
``(16) in 1997, the Center provided policy training to 256
police chiefs and sheriffs from 50 States and Guam at its new
Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center;
``(17) the programs of the Center have had a remarkable
impact, such as in the fight against infant abductions in
partnership with the healthcare industry, during which the
Center has performed 668 onsite hospital walk-throughs and
inspections, and trained 45,065 hospital administrators,
nurses, and security personnel, and thereby helped to reduce
infant abductions in the United States by 82 percent;
``(18) the Center is now playing a significant role in
international child abduction cases, serving as a
representative of the Department of State at cases under The
Hague Convention, and successfully resolving the cases of 343
international child abductions, and providing greater support
to parents in the United States;
``(19) the Center is a model of public/private partnership,
raising private sector funds to match congressional
appropriations and receiving extensive private in-kind
support, including advanced technology provided by the
computer industry such as imaging technology used to age the
photographs of long-term missing children and to reconstruct
facial images of unidentified deceased children;
``(20) the Center was 1 of only 10 of 300 major national
charities given an A+ grade in 1997 by the American Institute
of Philanthropy; and
``(21) the Center has been redesignated as the Nation's
missing children clearinghouse and resource center once every
3 years through a competitive selection process conducted by
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Department of Justice, and has received grants from that
Office to conduct the crucial purposes of the Center.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 403 of the Missing Children's
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5772) 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 adding at the end the following:
``(3) the term `Center' means the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children.''.
(c) Duties and Functions of the Administrator.--Section 404
of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Annual Grant to National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall annually make a
grant to the Center, which shall be used to--
``(A)(i) operate a national 24-hour toll-free telephone
line by which individuals may report information regarding
the location of any missing child, or other child 13 years of
age or younger whose whereabouts are unknown to such child's
legal custodian, and request information pertaining to
procedures necessary to reunite such child with such child's
legal custodian; and
``(ii) coordinate the operation of such telephone line with
the operation of the national communications system referred
to in part C of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C.
5714-11);
``(B) operate the official national resource center and
information clearinghouse for missing and exploited children;
``(C) provide to State and local governments, public and
private nonprofit agencies, and individuals, information
regarding--
``(i) free or low-cost legal, restaurant, lodging, and
transportation services that are available for the benefit of
missing and exploited children and their families; and
``(ii) the existence and nature of programs being carried
out by Federal agencies to assist missing and exploited
children and their families;
``(D) coordinate public and private programs that locate,
recover, or reunite missing children with their families;
``(E) disseminate, on a national basis, information
relating to innovative and model programs, services, and
legislation that benefit missing and exploited children;
``(F) provide technical assistance and training to law
enforcement agencies, State and local governments, elements
of the
[[Page 10791]]
criminal justice system, public and private nonprofit
agencies, and individuals in the prevention, investigation,
prosecution, and treatment of cases involving missing and
exploited children; and
``(G) provide assistance to families and law enforcement
agencies in locating and recovering missing and exploited
children, both nationally and internationally.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this
subsection, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003.
``(c) National Incidence Studies.--The Administrator,
either by making grants to or entering into contracts with
public agencies or nonprofit private agencies, shall--
``(1) periodically conduct national incidence studies to
determine for a given year the actual number of children
reported missing each year, the number of children who are
victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children who
are the victims of parental kidnapings, and the number of
children who are recovered each year; and
``(2) provide to State and local governments, public and
private nonprofit agencies, and individuals information to
facilitate the lawful use of school records and birth
certificates to identify and locate missing children.''.
(d) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.--
Section 405(a) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5775(a)) is amended by inserting ``the Center and
with'' before ``public agencies''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 408 of the
Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5777) is amended
by striking ``1997 through 2001'' and inserting ``2000
through 2003''.
SEC. 3. RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH.
(a) Findings.--Section 302 of the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``accurate reporting of
the problem nationally and to develop'' and inserting ``an
accurate national reporting system to report the problem, and
to assist in the development of''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) services for runaway and homeless youth are needed in
urban, suburban, and rural areas;''.
(b) Authority To Make Grants for Centers and Services.--
Section 311 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C.
5711) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Grants for Centers and Services.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to
public and nonprofit private entities (and combinations of
such entities) to establish and operate (including
renovation) local centers to provide services for runaway and
homeless youth and for the families of such youth.
``(2) Services provided.--Services provided under paragraph
(1)--
``(A) shall be provided as an alternative to involving
runaway and homeless youth in the law enforcement, child
welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice systems;
``(B) shall include--
``(i) safe and appropriate shelter; and
``(ii) individual, family, and group counseling, as
appropriate; and
``(C) may include--
``(i) street-based services;
``(ii) home-based services for families with youth at risk
of separation from the family; and
``(iii) drug abuse education and prevention services.'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands,''; and
(3) by striking subsections (c) and (d).
(c) Eligibility.--Section 312 of the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5712) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (7)'';
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) shall submit to the Secretary an annual report that
includes, with respect to the year for which the report is
submitted--
``(A) information regarding the activities carried out
under this part;
``(B) the achievements of the project under this part
carried out by the applicant; and
``(C) statistical summaries describing--
``(i) the number and the characteristics of the runaway and
homeless youth, and youth at risk of family separation, who
participate in the project; and
``(ii) the services provided to such youth by the
project.''; and
(2) by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the
following:
``(c) Applicants Providing Street-Based Services.--To be
eligible to use assistance under section 311(a)(2)(C)(i) to
provide street-based services, the applicant shall include in
the plan required by subsection (b) assurances that in
providing such services the applicant will--
``(1) provide qualified supervision of staff, including on-
street supervision by appropriately trained staff;
``(2) provide backup personnel for on-street staff;
``(3) provide initial and periodic training of staff who
provide such services; and
``(4) conduct outreach activities for runaway and homeless
youth, and street youth.
``(d) Applicants Providing Home-Based Services.--To be
eligible to use assistance under section 311(a) to provide
home-based services described in section 311(a)(2)(C)(ii), an
applicant shall include in the plan required by subsection
(b) assurances that in providing such services the applicant
will--
``(1) provide counseling and information to youth and the
families (including unrelated individuals in the family
households) of such youth, including services relating to
basic life skills, interpersonal skill building, educational
advancement, job attainment skills, mental and physical
health care, parenting skills, financial planning, and
referral to sources of other needed services;
``(2) provide directly, or through an arrangement made by
the applicant, 24-hour service to respond to family crises
(including immediate access to temporary shelter for runaway
and homeless youth, and youth at risk of separation from the
family);
``(3) establish, in partnership with the families of
runaway and homeless youth, and youth at risk of separation
from the family, objectives and measures of success to be
achieved as a result of receiving home-based services;
``(4) provide initial and periodic training of staff who
provide home-based services; and
``(5) ensure that--
``(A) caseloads will remain sufficiently low to allow for
intensive (5 to 20 hours per week) involvement with each
family receiving such services; and
``(B) staff providing such services will receive qualified
supervision.
``(e) Applicants Providing Drug Abuse Education and
Prevention Services.--To be eligible to use assistance under
section 311(a)(2)(C)(iii) to provide drug abuse education and
prevention services, an applicant shall include in the plan
required by subsection (b)--
``(1) a description of--
``(A) the types of such services that the applicant
proposes to provide;
``(B) the objectives of such services; and
``(C) the types of information and training to be provided
to individuals providing such services to runaway and
homeless youth; and
``(2) an assurance that in providing such services the
applicant shall conduct outreach activities for runaway and
homeless youth.''.
(d) Approval of Applications.--Section 313 of the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5713) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 313. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--An application by a public or private
entity for a grant under section 311(a) may be approved by
the Secretary after taking into consideration, with respect
to the State in which such entity proposes to provide
services under this part--
``(1) the geographical distribution in such State of the
proposed services under this part for which all grant
applicants request approval; and
``(2) which areas of such State have the greatest need for
such services.
``(b) Priority.--In selecting applications for grants under
section 311(a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(1) eligible applicants who have demonstrated experience
in providing services to runaway and homeless youth; and
``(2) eligible applicants that request grants of less than
$200,000.''.
(e) Authority for Transitional Living Grant Program.--
Section 321 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C.
5714-1) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``purpose and'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a)''; and
(3) by striking subsection (b).
(f) Eligibility.--Section 322(a)(9) of the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-2(a)(9)) is amended by
inserting ``, and the services provided to such youth by such
project,'' after ``such project''.
(g) Coordination.--Section 341 of the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-21) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 341. COORDINATION.
``With respect to matters relating to the health,
education, employment, and housing of runaway and homeless
youth, the Secretary--
``(1) in conjunction with the Attorney General, shall
coordinate the activities of agencies of the Department of
Health and Human Services with activities under any other
Federal juvenile crime control, prevention, and juvenile
offender accountability program and with the activities of
other Federal entities; and
``(2) shall coordinate the activities of agencies of the
Department of Health and Human Services with the activities
of other Federal entities and with the activities of entities
that are eligible to receive grants under this title.''.
(h) Authority To Make Grants for Research, Evaluation,
Demonstration, and Service Projects.--Section 343 of the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-23) is
amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``evaluation,''
after ``research,'';
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``evaluation,'' after
``research,''; and
[[Page 10792]]
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (10) as
paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively.
(i) Study.--Part D of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act
(42 U.S.C. 5731 et seq.) is amended by adding after section
344 the following:
``SEC. 345. STUDY
``The Secretary shall conduct a study of a representative
sample of runaways to determine the percent who leave home
because of sexual abuse. The report on the study shall
include--
``(1) in the case of sexual abuse , the relationship of the
assaulter to the runaway; and
``(2) recommendations on how Federal laws may be changed to
reduce sexual assaults on children.
The study shall be completed to enable the Secretary to make
a report to the committees of Congress with jurisdiction over
this Act, and to make such report available to the public,
within one year of the date of the enactment of this
section.''
(j) Assistance to Potential Grantees.--Section 371 of the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714a) is amended
by striking the last sentence.
(k) Reports.--Section 381 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act (42 U.S.C. 5715) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 381. REPORTS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than April 1, 2000, and
biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit, to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate, a report on the status, activities, and
accomplishments of entities that receive grants under parts
A, B, C, D, and E, with particular attention to--
``(1) in the case of centers funded under part A, the
ability or effectiveness of such centers in--
``(A) alleviating the problems of runaway and homeless
youth;
``(B) if applicable or appropriate, reuniting such youth
with their families and encouraging the resolution of
intrafamily problems through counseling and other services;
``(C) strengthening family relationships and encouraging
stable living conditions for such youth; and
``(D) assisting such youth to decide upon a future course
of action; and
``(2) in the case of projects funded under part B--
``(A) the number and characteristics of homeless youth
served by such projects;
``(B) the types of activities carried out by such projects;
``(C) the effectiveness of such projects in alleviating the
problems of homeless youth;
``(D) the effectiveness of such projects in preparing
homeless youth for self-sufficiency;
``(E) the effectiveness of such projects in assisting
homeless youth to decide upon future education, employment,
and independent living;
``(F) the ability of such projects to encourage the
resolution of intrafamily problems through counseling and
development of self-sufficient living skills; and
``(G) activities and programs planned by such projects for
the following fiscal year.
``(b) Contents of Reports.--The Secretary shall include in
each report submitted under subsection (a), summaries of--
``(1) the evaluations performed by the Secretary under
section 386; and
``(2) descriptions of the qualifications of, and training
provided to, individuals involved in carrying out such
evaluations.''.
(l) Evaluation.--Section 384 of the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5732) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 386. EVALUATION AND INFORMATION.
``(a) In General.--If a grantee receives grants for 3
consecutive fiscal years under part A, B, C, D, or E (in the
alternative), then the Secretary shall evaluate such grantee
on-site, not less frequently than once in the period of such
3 consecutive fiscal years, for purposes of--
``(1) determining whether such grants are being used for
the purposes for which such grants are made by the Secretary;
``(2) collecting additional information for the report
required by section 384; and
``(3) providing such information and assistance to such
grantee as will enable such grantee to improve the operation
of the centers, projects, and activities for which such
grants are made.
``(b) Cooperation.--Recipients of grants under this title
shall cooperate with the Secretary's efforts to carry out
evaluations, and to collect information, under this title.''.
(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 385 of the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5751) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 388. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this title (other than part E) such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002,
and 2003.
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) Parts a and b.--From the amount appropriated under
paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve
not less than 90 percent to carry out parts A and B.
``(B) Part b.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph
(A), not less than 20 percent, and not more than 30 percent,
shall be reserved to carry out part B.
``(3) Parts c and d.--In each fiscal year, after reserving
the amounts required by paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
use the remaining amount (if any) to carry out parts C and D.
``(b) Separate Identification Required.--No funds
appropriated to carry out this title may be combined with
funds appropriated under any other Act if the purpose of
combining such funds is to make a single discretionary grant,
or a single discretionary payment, unless such funds are
separately identified in all grants and contracts and are
used for the purposes specified in this title.''.
(n) Sexual Abuse Prevention Program.--
(1) Authority for program.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended--
(A) by striking the heading for part F;
(B) by redesignating part E as part F; and
(C) by inserting after part D the following:
``PART E--SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM
``SEC. 351. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to
nonprofit private agencies for the purpose of providing
street-based services to runaway and homeless, and street
youth, who have been subjected to, or are at risk of being
subjected to, sexual abuse, prostitution, or sexual
exploitation.
``(b) Priority.--In selecting applicants to receive grants
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to
nonprofit private agencies that have experience in providing
services to runaway and homeless, and street youth.''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 388(a) of the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5751), as amended
by subsection (m) of this section, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(4) Part e.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part E such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.''.
(o) Consolidated Review of Applications.--The Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 383 the following:
``SEC. 385. CONSOLIDATED REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.
``With respect to funds available to carry out parts A, B,
C, D, and E, nothing in this title shall be construed to
prohibit the Secretary from--
``(1) announcing, in a single announcement, the
availability of funds for grants under 2 or more of such
parts; and
``(2) reviewing applications for grants under 2 or more of
such parts in a single, consolidated application review
process.''.
(p) Definitions.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42
U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
386, as amended by subsection (l) of this section, the
following:
``SEC. 387. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Drug abuse education and prevention services.--The
term `drug abuse education and prevention services'--
``(A) means services to runaway and homeless youth to
prevent or reduce the illicit use of drugs by such youth; and
``(B) may include--
``(i) individual, family, group, and peer counseling;
``(ii) drop-in services;
``(iii) assistance to runaway and homeless youth in rural
areas (including the development of community support
groups);
``(iv) information and training relating to the illicit use
of drugs by runaway and homeless youth, to individuals
involved in providing services to such youth; and
``(v) activities to improve the availability of local drug
abuse prevention services to runaway and homeless youth.
``(2) Home-based services.--The term `home-based
services'--
``(A) means services provided to youth and their families
for the purpose of--
``(i) preventing such youth from running away, or otherwise
becoming separated, from their families; and
``(ii) assisting runaway youth to return to their families;
and
``(B) includes services that are provided in the residences
of families (to the extent practicable), including--
``(i) intensive individual and family counseling; and
``(ii) training relating to life skills and parenting.
``(3) Homeless youth.--The term `homeless youth' means an
individual--
``(A) who is--
``(i) not more than 21 years of age; and
``(ii) for the purposes of part B, not less than 16 years
of age;
``(B) for whom it is not possible to live in a safe
environment with a relative; and
``(C) who has no other safe alternative living arrangement.
``(4) Street-based services.--The term `street-based
services'--
``(A) means services provided to runaway and homeless
youth, and street youth, in
[[Page 10793]]
areas where they congregate, designed to assist such youth in
making healthy personal choices regarding where they live and
how they behave; and
``(B) may include--
``(i) identification of and outreach to runaway and
homeless youth, and street youth;
``(ii) crisis intervention and counseling;
``(iii) information and referral for housing;
``(iv) information and referral for transitional living and
health care services;
``(v) advocacy, education, and prevention services related
to--
``(I) alcohol and drug abuse;
``(II) sexual exploitation;
``(III) sexually transmitted diseases, including human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV); and
``(IV) physical and sexual assault.
``(5) Street youth.--The term `street youth' means an
individual who--
``(A) is--
``(i) a runaway youth; or
``(ii) indefinitely or intermittently a homeless youth; and
``(B) spends a significant amount of time on the street or
in other areas that increase the risk to such youth for
sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, prostitution, or drug
abuse.
``(6) Transitional living youth project.--The term
`transitional living youth project' means a project that
provides shelter and services designed to promote a
transition to self-sufficient living and to prevent long-term
dependency on social services.
``(7) Youth at risk of separation from the family.--The
term `youth at risk of separation from the family' means an
individual--
``(A) who is less than 18 years of age; and
``(B)(i) who has a history of running away from the family
of such individual;
``(ii) whose parent, guardian, or custodian is not willing
to provide for the basic needs of such individual; or
``(iii) who is at risk of entering the child welfare system
or juvenile justice system as a result of the lack of
services available to the family to meet such needs.''.
(q) Redesignation of Sections.--Sections 371, 372, 381,
382, and 383 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C.
5714b-5851 et seq.), as amended by this Act, are redesignated
as sections 380, 381, 382, 383, and 384, respectively.
(r) Technical Amendments.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 331, in the first sentence, by striking
``With'' and all that follows through ``the Secretary'', and
inserting ``The Secretary''; and
(2) in section 344(a)(1), by striking ``With'' and all that
follows through ``the Secretary'', and inserting ``The
Secretary''.
SEC. 4. STUDY OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE.
(a) Contract for Study.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education
shall enter into a contract with the National Academy of
Sciences for the purposes of conducting a study regarding the
antecedents of school violence in urban, suburban, and rural
schools, including the incidents of school violence that
occurred in Pearl, Mississippi; Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro,
Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; Edinboro, Pennsylvania;
Fayetteville, Tennessee; Littleton, Colorado; and Conyers,
Georgia. Under the terms of such contract, the National
Academy of Sciences shall appoint a panel that will--
(1) review the relevant research about adolescent violence
in general and school violence in particular, including the
existing longitudinal and cross-sectional studies on youth
that are relevant to examining violent behavior,
(2) relate what can be learned from past and current
research and surveys to specific incidents of school
shootings,
(3) interview relevant individuals, if possible, such as
the perpetrators of such incidents, their families, their
friends, their teachers, mental health providers, and others,
and
(4) give particular attention to such issues as--
(A) the perpetrators' early development, families,
communities, school experiences, and utilization of mental
health services,
(B) the relationship between perpetrators and their
victims,
(C) how the perpetrators gained access to firearms,
(D) the impact of cultural influences and exposure to the
media, video games, and the Internet, and
(E) such other issues as the panel deems important or
relevant to the purpose of the study.
The National Academy of Sciences shall utilize professionals
with expertise in such issues, including psychiatrists,
social workers, behavioral and social scientists,
practitioners, epidemiologists, statisticians, and
methodologists.
(b) Report.--The National Academy of Sciences shall submit
a report containing the results of the study required by
subsection (a), to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the
Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives,
and the Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, not
later than January 1, 2001, or 18 months after entering into
the contract required by such subsection, whichever is
earlier.
(c) Appropriation.--Of the funds made available under
Public Law 105-277 for the Department of Education, $2.1
million shall be made available to carry out this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Missing, Exploited and
Runaway Children's Protection Act. This legislation authorizes the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance
Act. It provides an authorization for the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children and it directs the National Academy of Sciences
to conduct a study of the cultural influences on youth violence.
Mr. Speaker, this is National Missing Children's Day, and obviously,
we have had a great number of hardships in America in recent weeks that
all of us want to address. Hopefully, what we are going to do today
will in some small part start to address these problems.
This legislation authorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to
provide services for the 0.5 million to 1.5 million youth estimated to
run away annually. The legislation continues the runaway and homeless
youth programs found in current law, including the basic center grants
and the transitional living grants.
These effective programs protect youth by keeping them off the
streets, away from criminal activities and out of desperate
circumstances. These programs provide assistance to homeless and other
youth who are without adult support so they learn to live independently
and become productive adults.
This legislation also provides for the continuation of services under
the Missing Children's Assistance Act. For instance, this act
authorizes grants for research, demonstration projects and service
programs in areas such as abduction prevention education.
The provision of this bill that I particularly want to focus my
colleagues' attention on is its authorization of an appropriation for
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children helps families who have a
missing child locate that child. Since 1984, the Center has worked with
law enforcement on the cases of 67,173 missing children, resulting in
the recovery of 46,031 children. In 1998 alone, it assisted in finding
5,835 missing children.
The Center works with the families of 80 missing children in my own
State of Delaware. The Center services, including its National Missing
Child Hotline, are essential to all families of missing children.
Recognizing the Center's substantial success rate in recovering
missing children and its annual designation as the national
clearinghouse for information on missing children, the legislation
authorizes a $10 million yearly appropriation for fiscal years 2000
through 2003 for the Center. This authorization ensures that for the
next 4 years the Center can focus on providing assistance to families
without interruption.
Some of my colleagues may remember that I have been working to get
this legislation passed since the 105th Congress. I am pleased we are
one step closer to completing this effort. The Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act, the Missing Children's Assistance Act and the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Youth provide much needed services for
missing and runaway youth.
Finally, I would like to mention an important study contained in this
legislation. As Members may know, my subcommittee has held hearings on
the issue of school violence in response to the tragic shootings that
have traumatized our Nation's schools. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Greenwood), an active member of the subcommittee, has crafted
legislation to help us obtain information on why students commit such
violent acts.
[[Page 10794]]
A great deal of blame has been spread around, and I believe it is
important that we really understand the causal factors that place youth
at risk for school violence.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank several Members for their
assistance on this legislation. I would like to thank the chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I would
also like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who will be managing the bill
on the opposite side of the aisle, as well as the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), for their hard work on the school violence study.
Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation and it deserves the support of
the House of Representatives. The Senate has already passed comparable
legislation. We would like to pass our legislation and proceed to
conference as quickly as possible. It has been far too long that these
important programs have been without an authorization.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 249, the Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children
Protection Act makes vital improvements to the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act
and deserves the strong support of all the Members here today.
This legislation will streamline and refocus the existing basic
Center grants, the transitional living grants and the drug education
program into one reauthorization, while maintaining the distinct nature
of each program. I believe this is an essential improvement that will
strengthen the ability of localities to provide services to the
vulnerable populations of runaway and homeless children.
Mr. Speaker, S. 249 also requires a National Academy of Sciences
study to examine which factors contribute to violence around and in our
schools. This study will better enable us to understand what leads our
young people to commit such tragic acts as those in Littleton,
Colorado, and other places that have shared the unfortunate experience
of having school violence touch its teachers, parents, students and
communities.
This study, which has been a cooperative effort between the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Greenwood), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and myself is necessary so we can gain a
better understanding of the profile of those most likely to commit
violence and provide them with appropriate interventions and supportive
services.
It is my hope we can constructively use the results of this study to
lessen the violence which presently is troubling our schools.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is worthy of Members'
support, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
{time} 1045
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I, too, rise in support of the Missing, Exploited and Runaway
Children's Protection Act. The programs and activities under this
legislation aim to improve the well-being of our Nation's runaway,
homeless, and missing children. This legislation authorizes the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act. And one program under this Act is the
Transitional Living Project for ages 16 to 21, children who cannot
safely live at home.
I share the enthusiasm of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle)
for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Center
has trained at least 42 law enforcement officers in Pennsylvania on how
best to handle missing children's cases, a service available to law
enforcement officers across the country.
Additionally, on its web site and through other avenues, the Center
provides actual photographs of missing children along with age
progression computerized images of the missing children. Currently, the
Center's web site includes a photograph and computerized image of 51
missing children from Pennsylvania. I must commend the Center on its
extraordinary success rate in finding missing children.
Another key provision of the legislation will address an issue that
has weighed heavily on our minds over the past few months. In a hearing
held by the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families last
week, we heard firsthand testimony from students who have been the
victims of violent acts in their schools. We heard loud and clear the
fear in their voices and their concerns about future violence in their
schools.
But we still have no clear answers to the core casual factors of
school violence. This legislation includes a study to be performed by
the National Academy of Science which will explore the causes of school
violence. Information gathered through this study will help us to
improve the effectiveness of our current violence prevention efforts.
I would like to thank members of the committee for their hard work
and their staffs, particularly the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle)
for his leadership. Also, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee)
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for their guidance on the
School Science Study. The result is a quality piece of legislation.
I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House amendments to the
Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children's Protection Act. I want to
thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce for their bipartisan work on this legislation.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his
excellent work as a sponsor of this legislation and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my dear colleague.
The bill before us today provides the resources for families to deal
with the terrible issue of missing, exploited and runaway children. The
National Center for Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children operates a
National Resource Center and a toll-free hot line to provide assistance
to state and local governments in finding missing children and
preventing the exploitation of children.
I believe this is important, Mr. Speaker. This legislation utilizes
all of our law enforcement and child services tools once a child is
missing, but the legislation also is designed to prevent the terrible
occurrence of a missing, exploited or runaway child. I am glad that we
are addressing this bill today.
In the last 6 weeks, I have had a personal experience. I got a call
late one Saturday night and it was my girlfriend of over 30 years. She
said, ``Carolyn, I do not know what I am going to do. My daughter's two
children have been kidnapped.''
With that, I gave her the information, only because I have learned
about this through Congress. I gave her the phone numbers to call. And
within hours, the photos of the missing children were put out across
this country. I am happy to say that one child has been recovered. The
other one is still missing. But with all the resources coming together,
I am grateful that we, hopefully, will find the other child.
Also, since being in Congress, one of the provisions of this bill is
also helping with children that have nowhere else to go. I have been
privileged to meet and work with a number of groups on Long Island; and
I have to
[[Page 10795]]
tell my colleagues, I was shocked on how many homeless children we have
just on Long Island.
We have found that we can give them shelter. We have found that we
can give them training. We have found that they turn their lives around
and become productive citizens. This is something that really helps our
children across this Nation. It is something that we should be working
on more and more. It shows, when we work together, we can make a
difference here in Congress.
I am glad that we are addressing this bill today, and I urge my
colleagues to support this important bill. I thank the Committee on
Education and the Workforce for their bipartisan work.
I believe the true measure of our Government's efficiency can be
found in the way we treat our children, the extent to which we protect
our children. The legislation before us today demonstrates there is an
important role in protecting our children and saving our children's
lives. I thank everyone for the work that they have done, and may we
continue to do this.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), another distinguished gentleman from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who has worked hard in the Congress of the
United States on the issues of children.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Missing, Exploited and
Runaway Children's Protection Act; and I do so with a deep sense of
gratitude. As a former caseworker who worked with abused and neglected
children, I understand the importance of this legislation.
I would like to focus my remarks on that part that I worked on, and
that is the study that we are asking the National Academy of Science to
conduct with regard to school violence.
Mr. Speaker, the Nation has been horrified and people have been
saddened and perplexed and to some extent we have been divided over the
issues of these school shootings. America asks the question, ``Why? Why
would children take firearms to their schools and shoot their
classmates and shoot their teachers?'' America then quickly responds
with the command, ``Do something. Somebody do something.'' And, as
policymakers, that is part of our responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I think, for the most part, the short-term efforts to
prevent school violence must be community based and they must be school
based and they must be home based. But there are some things that the
Congress can do and there are things that we need to do in terms of a
long-run strategy.
This legislation will direct the National Academy of Sciences to do a
study on the antecedents of school violence. Researchers, the best
social scientists and child psychologists that we can gather in this
country, will literally travel to Pearl, Mississippi, to Paducah,
Kentucky, to Jonesboro, Arkansas, to Springfield, Oregon, to Edinboro,
Pennsylvania, to Fayetteville, Tennessee, indeed to Littleton,
Colorado; and, regretfully, most recently we have had to amend this
language to include Conyers, Georgia.
The scientists will interview, when they can, the perpetrators, the
actual shooters. They will interview their parents, their siblings,
their neighbors, their classmates, their teachers, their guidance
counselors, any professionals that have dealt with these young people,
to try to find out what were the early childhood experiences of these
kids, what were their school experiences, what were the relationships
between the perpetrators and the victims, how did the perpetrators gain
access to firearms, and what were the impact of cultural influences and
exposure to the media, video games and the Internet.
They will report back to America about their findings. And,
hopefully, in a sober and thoughtful and disciplined way, America will
understand how some of our communities impacted some of our children in
ways that made them so inexplicably violent.
Mr. Speaker, it is my experience that the left-most of our political
spectrum tends to look at this issue and turn immediately and almost
exclusively to guns and the right-most of our political spectrum tends
to look exclusively at the cultural impacts.
It is my belief that we need to look at the children. We need to
understand how our children are affected by experiences in their home,
in their schools and in their communities and how we as a society can
value our children more than we do so that all of our children are
uplifted by our actions.
I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling), for his help and cooperation with this. I would like to
thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the Speaker for his condolences, his help as
well.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of good work has been done on this bill;
and I would like to laud Members on both sides of the aisle for this
work.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is a private,
non-Federal corporation that was founded back in 1984; and they have
helped over the last 15 years to recover over 40,000 missing children.
I first worked with them back in 1985. They were one year in existence
at that time. And I was a news reporter working back in Pennsylvania.
One afternoon after getting off the school bus near the town of
Cabot, Pennsylvania, 8-year-old Cherrie Mahan disappeared, never to be
seen or heard from again. There was a police bulletin which went out,
went all over the Nation, looking for a van with a ski scene on the
side. That is what they believed the people were driving who they
thought abducted Cherrie.
That was never proven. The van was never found. But a very quiet,
rural community was upended. The family was upended. This 8-year-old
girl had just gotten off the bus on her way home, never to be seen,
never to be heard from again. Where do they look? Where do they turn
to?
And finally, the people from that community found the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children. People in the community worked
together. They searched. They looked for clues. They put out every kind
of feeler they could trying to find out who knew about this young
girl's abduction. And they collected money for a reward. All told, they
collected from their hard-earned dollars $58,000.
Last October, when it was determined that Cherrie was not going to
come back and she was declared legally dead, that $58,000 was presented
by me along with those people, the friends and neighbors of Cherrie
Mahan, a $58,000 check, to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children so that that money could be used as a resource to
help establish computer networks across this country to find runaway
kids, to find kids who have been abducted, and to help fight against
violence in our schools.
In return, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
gave an $8,000 TRAC system, called Technology to Recover Abducted Kids,
back to the Butler State Police Barracks in Butler, Pennsylvania. And
they hoped that if they ever have to see another sad situation like the
tragic disappearance of Cherrie Mahan, that the community will be
better prepared, that they will be better armed with this new
technology, and that we in the Federal Government can be a partner in
that, making sure that the resources are there so that the sadness that
the Mahan family has had to live with will never be felt by other
families across this Nation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
[[Page 10796]]
Mr. Speaker, this measure, S. 249, focuses on the terrible problem
confronting all too many American families: missing, exploited and
runaway children. I commend the sponsors of the House and Senate
resolution, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the
distinguished senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), for their diligence in
bringing it to the Congress.
As a parent, few things can be more painful than the uncertainty and
anxiety that arises when a child becomes missing. The void of not
having a loved one present, plus the fear and anxiety of what that
loved one may be undergoing, are cruel hardships that no one should
ever have to endure.
Although this measure focuses primarily upon the domestic aspect of
this problem and improves the way our Government addresses the problems
that may be associated with missing or exploited children, I want to
highlight an issue that I have become increasingly involved with, the
problem of internationally abducted children.
In an interdependent world, we are finding American citizens often
marrying and having children with foreign nationals and a corresponding
increase in the number of children that are taken to or illegally
retained in another country.
This measure highlights the excellent work of our National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. I join in commending that organization
and add my voice to those who feel that the role of NCMEC should be
straightened in the cases of international parental abductions. Our
citizens deserve an able advocate for their rights as parents, and I am
confident that NCMEC is the appropriate organization to serve this
vital function.
There are efforts underway in some parts of our Government to curtail
NCMEC's role in assisting our citizens recover their illegally abducted
or wrongfully retained children from other countries. I urge that all
supporters of this measure exercise their vigilance to make certain
that does not occur. Our citizens who are victims of child abduction
deserve to have an organization such as the NCMEC to support them.
I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his courtesy in
yielding, and I urge our colleagues to fully approve S. 249 on behalf
of our missing, exploited and runaway children.
{time} 1045
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time.
First, I would like to associate my remarks with those of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) regarding his work with the
international effort to return children who are taken from our country,
and I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York on that
issue.
I rise today to encourage all of my colleagues to cast their votes in
favor of S. 249, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children
Protection Act. Two years ago when I first joined all of you in
Congress, I wanted to address all of the problems that we face here,
education, Social Security and health care. But unfortunately in April,
right after my first swearing-in, all of my plans drastically changed
when a 12-year-old little girl, Laura Kate Smither from Friendswood,
Texas, was abducted and savagely murdered. After seeing the faces of
the Smither family and the outpouring of support from the community of
Friendswood, I knew that I wanted to work on behalf of our children and
their families.
After meeting Ernie Allen, the President of the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, and his dedicated staff, I decided to
work diligently to establish the first-ever Congressional Missing and
Exploited Children's Caucus with my colleagues the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) to
provide a unified and loud voice for missing and exploited children
here in Congress.
I am pleased to report, as of today, this bipartisan caucus now has
126 members. We work on legislation to impose tougher penalties on
those who commit sexual offenses against children and to make sure our
communities are notified when convicted sex offenders move into their
neighborhoods.
The caucus would not be nearly as effective in producing innovative
legislation and helpful district safety workshops without the advice
and programs offered at the National Center. The Center's outreach
programs help chiefs of police and sheriffs to develop fast response
plans through the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Program, to comb
neighborhoods and streets for our children who have been reported as
missing. The Center also focuses its educational outreach programs
toward children who can learn how to protect themselves from the
dangers that they face in today's world. I am proud to have helped the
Center unveil a nationwide program called ``Know the Rules.'' It was a
public service campaign that was started here in Washington just a
couple of years ago.
``Know the Rules'' is a set of simple rules all children, but
especially teenage girls between the ages of 12 and 17, should use in
their everyday lives to build self-esteem and to help them escape
potentially dangerous situations.
I have two daughters and will become a grandfather for the first time
in November. I am convinced that funding the National Center is as good
an investment of taxpayer dollars as can be made to ensure the safety
of our Nation's children.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of our colleagues from Oregon to Ohio and
California to Connecticut to support the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children on this National Missing Children's Day by
voting for S. 249.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) who is not only from Colorado,
but has been through a difficult 5 weeks living in the shadow of
Columbine High School.
Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the Missing, Exploited,
and Runaway Children's Act, but more specifically in support of the
school violence study that has been referred to here several times.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that we have now had to deal with for quite
some time, but it has been brought home to us more dramatically in the
last few weeks than perhaps anytime in the recent past. That fact is
that we are a violent country.
The character of the American people, unfortunately, we have a
violent character. The history of this Nation is replete with violence.
It is not a good thing that I say but it is unfortunately a true thing.
What is completely unusual, what is not at all to be explained by our
history, however, is the violence we see now in schools and with
children. Because although we have always had a violent society, the
fact is we have never in the history of this country had a situation
where children were participants to the extent that they are today in
that violent nature.
So something has happened. Something has changed. This is one thing
we know for sure, that this is a brand new phenomenon. We have to
figure out why this is occurring.
There was a recent study that was a fascinating study I commend to my
colleagues. It was done by an individual who works for the armed
forces. His task really is to desensitize members of the armed forces
to the actual act of killing another human being because, as he says,
this is a very difficult thing. People do not do it naturally.
Taking the life of another member of your own species is not natural
and you have to work at it. When we do it in the armed forces under
controlled circumstances, you use technology to desensitize members of
the armed forces to actually taking a life. But that is in a very
controlled environment.
What has happened is that some of the same technology that is used by
the armed forces, in particular a computerized game called Doom, is a
game
[[Page 10797]]
that is now available to everyone, to youngsters in our society, over
the Internet. As a matter of fact, the two shooters in Colorado, Mr.
Klebold and Mr. Harris, were compulsive about this game, Doom, were
into it to a very great extent.
I do not know whether or not that one thing had everything to do with
what happened in Columbine. I do not know how much of an impact it had
on what they decided to do. All I do know is this, that something has
changed in our society, and we are turning children into killers. We
are turning children into individuals without a conscience.
This is new, Mr. Speaker, and this is frightening. We have to find
out why this is happening. Therefore, I commend my colleagues on the
committee for this bill and specifically for the study on school
violence, which I hope will bring to our attention the cause of this
new phenomenon.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the bipartisan
spirit in which this bill has been written from beginning to end. I
think we have a very good bill here. I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, it is a parent's worst nightmare when you
come in from work and you call out your child's name and she does not
answer, and you begin to look for her and you cannot find her; and as
you begin to search, your apprehension turns to panic and then your
concern turns to pure terror.
Unfortunately, that happens in literally thousands of homes in
America today. In fact, if you are the parent of an 11-year-old girl,
you will be sad to know that that group is the most at risk for murder
and abduction in this country today.
Unfortunately, there are so many of the colleagues that could speak
today who will name the name of a child who is missing in their
community. In my case, her name is Opal Jennings. She is a darling
little girl who is missing from our community. Unfortunately, a number
have been missing from our community. That is what we are talking about
today.
The Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act would do
something to help those parents. It would authorize $10 million a year
for a period of 5 years for the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children. Among other things, this money would help operate a
24-hour toll free telephone line to report those children and public
and private programs to locate, recover and hopefully reunite them with
their family. This is something that needs to be done, it should have
wonderful bipartisan support in this Congress, and it is the least we
can do for our children.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would just point out a couple of things. One, we have spoken to
various parts of this legislation, but I think we all in the House of
Representatives need to understand the importance and the components of
what we are dealing with here. It first authorizes, as I said in my
opening, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and Missing Children's
Assistance Act. It also provides an authorization, which we heard about
very eloquently from several speakers for the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children; and it does, as we also heard from the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and others, direct the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the cultural
influences on youth violence.
These things, in and of themselves, may not prevent all the problems
of youth in this country, it will not; but it may in some small way
start the mending process which we consider to be so important.
I would just like to thank all of those who took the time to come to
the floor to speak to this today and all the Members of the House, who
I believe will be supportive of what we consider to be very significant
legislation to help with these problems.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Center for Missing and
Exploited Children should be commended and supported for their work on
this critical issue. However, I must oppose this legislation as it is
outside the proper Constitutional role for the federal government to
spend money in this way; such spending is more appropriate coming from
the states and private donations. As always, I am amazed that Members
of Congress are so willing to be generous with their constituent's tax
dollars, yet do not seem willing to support such causes out of their
own pockets.
This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that
are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal
government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between
public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless
regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to
public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct
violation of the First Amendment.
The moral decay of our nation is a serious issue that must be
addressed. However, after some forty years of federal meddling in
education and other social issues, it is clear politicians on Capitol
Hill have made matters worse for our children, not better.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, today is National Missing Children's Day.
Fitting enough, today we will also be voting on legislation to help
locate missing, exploited and runaway children in our society.
Congress first established Missing Children's Day in 1982 to increase
public awareness regarding the thousands of children who disappear each
year. Through the hard work of organizations such as the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I am proud to say that
within the past 13 years, more than 35,000 children have been located,
many having been saved from child abductions, molestations and sexual
exploitation.
Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that today we will vote on S. 249,
The Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children Protection Act. This
legislation will provide funds for the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children to meet several of our nation's needs as they work
to reunite missing and exploited children and their families.
For parents who have missing children, every day is a struggle. I
urge my colleagues to help families stricken with this awful tragedy by
supporting S. 249.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important, and it
is particularly significant to me due to the tragic murder of Polly
Klaas that occurred in my home town of Petaluma in 1993.
Polly Klaas was taken from her home at knife point during a slumber
party while her mother slept in the next room. Richard Allen Davis, the
brutal kidnapper, was later stopped by police in a nearby community.
The officers did not know that there was a suspect being sought at that
moment, so unfortunately they let him go. Could Polly have been saved
if a more sophisticated computer system had been in place allowing
different police jurisdictions to communicate? We'll never know.
What I do know is that--thanks to a COPS grant recently awarded to
the Sonoma County Police Consortium--such a computer system will soon
be in place. This $6.2 million grant will permit the agencies in my
district to upgrade dispatch systems, connect mobile police units, and
increase the efficiency in filing incident reports. This is just one
important step in improving our safely net for children.
I am forever heartbroken that we were not able to save Polly, but I
know that the best way we can honor Polly and other missing children is
by doing our utmost to prevent such atrocities from happening to
another child, another family, another community.
This bill today, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children
Protection Act, will allow such vital assistance programs as the Center
for Missing and Exploited Children and the national toll-free hotline
to continue. Without such resources, it is nearly impossible to conduct
a responsive, nationwide search that could be the key to the missing
child's survival.
I am also proud to be a Member of the Missing and Exploited
Children's Caucus in Congress, because it heightens awareness that we
must continue to make progress in protecting our children. We cannot
let our guard down. Saving the lives of the most vulnerable in our
population should be our most important priority. Children are 25% of
our population, but they are 100% of our future.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage all my colleagues to
support the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act.
Today I would like to focus on one specific facet of this Act, the
authorization of Congressional support for the National Center
[[Page 10798]]
for Missing and Exploited Children. Since 1984, the Center has proven
to be an invaluable resource for state and local governments who
struggle each day to recover missing children and to prevent the
exploitation of children.
Through its toll-free hotline, its training programs for state and
local professionals, and its coordination of recovery programs, the
Center is a focal point mobilizing citizens and communities in the
pursuit of safety for all of America's children. The convergence of
public and private resources in pursuit of this common goal has
resulted in the recovery of more than 40,000 children--40,000 children
who could have been lost without the contributions of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The Center is particularly important to South Florida because one of
its affiliated programs, the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training
Center, was established by Congress in 1996 in memory of my
constituent, Jimmy Ryce, the son of Don and Claudine Ryce. In 1995, at
9 years of age, Jimmy was abducted and brutally murdered while walking
home from school. The Ryce Center, a joint project of the Center for
Missing and Exploited Children and the Justice Department's Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, trains Chiefs of Police
and Sheriffs in the most up-to-date methods of searching for missing
children. The Ryce Center promotes swift, effective investigative
response to missing and exploited children cases, provides
comprehensive training in case investigations, ensures the consistent
and meaningful use of reporting systems, and promotes the use of
important national resources to assist in these cases.
The Ryce Center is an invaluable resource to law enforcement
officials throughout the country, and in just a few short years has
made enormous strides in changing the way America deals with cases of
missing and exploited children. In the face of a problem which none of
us should have to face, Don and Claudine have turned their personal
tragedy in to a positive effort to help ensure the safety of millions
of American children just like Jimmy. I urge all of my colleagues to
support the passage of this bill.
General Leave
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
S. 249.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Delaware?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 249, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. CASTLE. 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.
____________________
TRADE AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS, DRUG FREE BORDERS, AND PREVENTION OF ON-
LINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 1999
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1833) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
for the United States Customs Service for drug interdiction and other
operations, for the Office of the United States Trade Representative,
for the United States International Trade Commission, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1833
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 ``Trade Agency Authorizations,
Drug Free Borders, and Prevention of On-Line Child
Pornography Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE
Subtitle A--Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial and Commercial
Operations
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations for noncommercial operations,
commercial operations, and air and marine interdiction.
Sec. 102. Illicit narcotics detection equipment for the United States-
Mexico border, United States-Canada border, and Florida
and the Gulf Coast seaports.
Sec. 103. Peak hours and investigative resource enhancement for the
United States-Mexico and United States-Canada borders.
Sec. 104. Compliance with performance plan requirements.
Subtitle B--Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service
Sec. 111. Authorization of appropriations for program to prevent child
pornography/child sexual exploitation.
Subtitle C--Personnel Provisions
Chapter 1--Overtime And Premium Pay of Officers of the Customs Service
Sec. 121. Correction relating to fiscal year cap.
Sec. 122. Correction relating to overtime pay.
Sec. 123. Correction relating to premium pay.
Sec. 124. Use of savings from payment of overtime and premium pay for
additional overtime enforcement activities of the Customs
Service.
Sec. 125. Effective date.
Chapter 2--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 131. Study and report relating to personnel practices of the
Customs Service.
TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE I--UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE
Subtitle A--Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial and Commercial
Operations
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL
OPERATIONS, COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, AND AIR AND
MARINE INTERDICTION.
(a) Noncommercial Operations.--Section 301(b)(1) of the
Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19
U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) $999,563,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) $996,464,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(b) Commercial Operations.--
(1) In general.--Section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i) to read as follows:
``(i) $1,154,359,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
(B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) $1,194,534,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(2) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and not later than each subsequent 90-
day period, the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare and
submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report demonstrating that the development and establishment
of the automated commercial environment computer system is
being carried out in a cost-effective manner and meets the
modernization requirements of title VI of the North American
Free Trade Agreements Implementation Act.
(c) Air and Marine Interdiction.--Section 301(b)(3) of the
Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19
U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) $109,413,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) $113,789,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section
301(a) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification
Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) By no later than the date on which the President
submits to the Congress the budget of the United States
Government for a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs
shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year
that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs
Service as provided for in subsection (b).''.
SEC. 102. ILLICIT NARCOTICS DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR THE
UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER, UNITED STATES-
CANADA BORDER, AND FLORIDA AND THE GULF COAST
SEAPORTS.
(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2000 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act,
$90,244,000 shall be available until expended for acquisition
and other expenses associated with implementation and
deployment of illicit narcotics detection
[[Page 10799]]
equipment along the United States-Mexico border, the United
States-Canada border, and Florida and the Gulf Coast
seaports, as follows:
(1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
Mexico border, the following:
(A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,200,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $13,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts
to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).
(D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors
(busters) to be distributed among ports where the current
allocations are inadequate.
(F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among all southwest border ports based on traffic
volume.
(G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units
to be distributed among all ports receiving liquid-filled
cargo and to ports with a hazardous material inspection
facility.
(H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
(I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be
distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat.
(J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera
systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at
loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or
areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured.
(L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be
distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of
outbound traffic.
(M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio stations,
with 1 station to be located at each border crossing.
(N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be
installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
(O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the
surveillance of customs inspection activities by persons
outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance
activities are occurring.
(P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders
to be distributed to all ports of entry.
(Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle
detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
(R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting
software to be installed at each port to target inbound
vehicles.
(2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
Canada border, the following:
(A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors
to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic
volume.
(3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the
Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
(A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act,
$8,924,500 shall be available until expended for the
maintenance and support of the equipment and training of
personnel to maintain and support the equipment described in
subsection (a).
(c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment;
Transfer of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use
amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section
301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and
Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as
amended by section 101(a) of this Act, for the acquisition of
equipment other than the equipment described in subsection
(a) if such other equipment--
(A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment
described in subsection (a); and
(ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that
is the same or less than the equipment described in
subsection (a); or
(B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment
described in subsection (a).
(2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate
an amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
(A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (R);
(B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (G) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (G); and
(C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (E).
SEC. 103. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO AND UNITED STATES-
CANADA BORDERS.
Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 2000 and
2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of
the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978
(19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)), as amended by section
101(a) of this Act, $127,644,584 for fiscal year 2000 and
$184,110,928 for fiscal year 2001 shall be available for the
following:
(1) A net increase of 535 inspectors, 120 special agents,
and 10 intelligence analysts for the United States-Mexico
border and 375 inspectors for the United States-Canada
border, in order to open all primary lanes on such borders
during peak hours and enhance investigative resources.
(2) A net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement
officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as
needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and
reduce commercial waiting times on the United States-Mexico
border.
(3) A net increase of 40 inspectors at sea ports in
southeast Florida to process and screen cargo.
(4) A net increase of 300 special agents, 30 intelligence
analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among
offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug
or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for
intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
laundering organizations.
(5) A net increase of 50 positions and additional resources
to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative
resources for anticorruption efforts.
(6) The costs incurred as a result of the increase in
personnel hired pursuant to this section.
SEC. 104. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
As part of the annual performance plan for each of the
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 covering each program activity set
forth in the budget of the United States Customs Service, as
required under section 1115 of title 31, United States Code,
the Commissioner of the Customs Service shall establish
performance goals, performance indicators, and comply with
all other requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through
(6) of subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of
the activities to be carried out pursuant to sections 111 and
112 of this Act.
Subtitle B--Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service
SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROGRAM TO
PREVENT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY/CHILD SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Customs Service $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000 to carry out the program to prevent child
pornography/child sexual exploitation established by the
Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service.
(b) Use of Amounts for Child Pornography Cyber Tipline.--Of
the amount appropriated under subsection (a), the Customs
Service shall provide 3.75 percent of such amount to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for the
operation of the child pornography cyber tipline of the
Center and for increased public awareness of the tipline.
Subtitle C--Personnel Provisions
CHAPTER 1--OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY OF OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE
SEC. 121. CORRECTION RELATING TO FISCAL YEAR CAP.
Section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C.
267(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Fiscal year cap.--The aggregate of overtime pay under
subsection (a) (including commuting compensation under
subsection (a)(2)(B)) that a customs officer may be paid in
any fiscal year may not exceed $30,000, except that--
``(A) the Commissioner of Customs or his or her designee
may waive this limitation in individual cases in order to
prevent excessive costs or to meet emergency requirements of
the Customs Service; and
``(B) upon certification by the Commissioner of Customs to
the Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
that the Customs Service has in operation a system that
provides
[[Page 10800]]
accurate and reliable data on a daily basis on overtime and
premium pay that is being paid to customs officers, the
Commissioner is authorized to pay any customs officer for one
work assignment that would result in the overtime pay of that
officer exceeding the $30,000 limitation imposed by this
paragraph, in addition to any overtime pay that may be
received pursuant to a waiver under subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 122. CORRECTION RELATING TO OVERTIME PAY.
Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C.
267(a)(1)), is amended by inserting after the first sentence
the following new sentences: ``Overtime pay provided under
this subsection shall not be paid to any customs officer
unless such officer actually performed work during the time
corresponding to such overtime pay. The preceding sentence
shall not apply with respect to the payment of an award or
settlement to a customs officer who was unable to perform
overtime work as a result of a personnel action in violation
of section 5596 of title 5, United States Code, section 6(d)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.''.
SEC. 123. CORRECTION RELATING TO PREMIUM PAY.
(a) In General.--Section 5(b)(4) of the Act of February 13,
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(4)), is amended by adding after the
first sentence the following new sentences: ``Premium pay
provided under this subsection shall not be paid to any
customs officer unless such officer actually performed work
during the time corresponding to such premium pay. The
preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to the
payment of an award or settlement to a customs officer who
was unable to perform work during the time described in the
preceding sentence as a result of a personnel action in
violation of section 5596 of title 5, United States Code,
section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.''.
(b) Corrections Relating to Night Work Differential Pay.--
Section 5(b)(1) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(1) Night work differential.--
``(A) 6 p.m. to midnight.--If any hours of regularly
scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the hours of
6 p.m. and 12 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for such
hours of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3)
applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus
premium pay amounting to 15 percent of that basic rate.
``(B) Midnight to 6 a.m.--If any hours of regularly
scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the hours of
12 a.m. and 6 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for such
hours of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3)
applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus
premium pay amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate.
``(C) Midnight to 8 a.m.--If the regularly scheduled work
of a customs officer is 12 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., the officer is
entitled to pay for work during such period (except for work
to which paragraph (2) or (3) applies) at the officer's
hourly rate of basic pay plus premium pay amounting to 20
percent of that basic rate.''.
SEC. 124. USE OF SAVINGS FROM PAYMENT OF OVERTIME AND PREMIUM
PAY FOR ADDITIONAL OVERTIME ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.
Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267),
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Use of Savings From Payment of Overtime and Premium
Pay for Additional Overtime Enforcement Activities.--
``(1) Use of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999 and each
subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury--
``(A) shall determine under paragraph (2) the amount of
savings from the payment of overtime and premium pay to
customs officers; and
``(B) shall use an amount from the Customs User Fee Account
equal to such amount determined under paragraph (2) for
additional overtime enforcement activities of the Customs
Service.
``(2) Determination of savings amount.--For each fiscal
year, the Secretary shall calculate an amount equal to the
difference between--
``(A) the estimated cost for overtime and premium pay that
would have been incurred during that fiscal year if this
section, as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of sections 122 and 123 of the Trade Agency
Authorization, Drug Free Borders, and Prevention of On-Line
Child Pornography Act of 1999, had governed such costs; and
``(B) the actual cost for overtime and premium pay that is
incurred during that fiscal year under this section, as
amended by sections 122 and 123 of the Trade Agency
Authorization, Drug Free Borders, and Prevention of On-Line
Child Pornography Act of 1999.''.
SEC. 125. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This chapter, and the amendments made by this chapter,
shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after
15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
CHAPTER 2--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 131. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO PERSONNEL PRACTICES OF
THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.
(a) Study.--The Commissioner of Customs shall conduct a
study of current personnel practices of the Customs Service,
including an overview of performance standards and the effect
and impact of the collective bargaining process on drug
interdiction efforts of the Customs Service and a comparison
of duty rotation policies of the Customs Service and other
Federal agencies that employ similarly-situated personnel.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs shall
submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report containing the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a).
TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 141(g)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``not
to exceed the following'' and inserting ``as follows'';
(B) in clause (i) to read as follows:
``(i) $26,501,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
(C) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) $26,501,000 for fiscal year 2001.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (i), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(B) by striking clause (ii); and
(C) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
(b) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section
141(g) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) By no later than the date on which the President
submits to the Congress the budget of the United States
Government for a fiscal year, the United States Trade
Representative shall submit to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Finance of the Senate the projected amount of funds for the
succeeding fiscal year that will be necessary for the Office
to carry out its functions.''.
TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 330(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i) to read as follows:
``(i) $47,200,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
(2) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) $49,750,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(b) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section
330(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) By no later than the date on which the President
submits to the Congress the budget of the United States
Government for a fiscal year, the Commission shall submit to
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year
that will be necessary for the Commission to carry out its
functions.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
General Leave
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 1833.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1833, the Trade Agency Authorizations, Drug Free
Borders, and Prevention of On-Line Child Pornography Act of 1999
contains budget authorizations for the United States Customs Service,
the Office of the United States Trade Representative and the
International Trade Commission. H.R. 1833 also reforms Customs
inspectors overtime and shift differential pay.
H.R. 1833 passed the committee unanimously by a vote of 36-0.
H.R. 1833 authorizes the President's budget request for USTR and the
ITC, but goes beyond the President's request for the Customs Service in
order to provide more funding for drug interdiction, child pornography
prevention initiatives and Customs automation.
[[Page 10801]]
Illegal drugs are killing our youths. Sex predators stalk our
children on the Internet. We must protect our children from the scourge
of illegal drugs and on-line sex predators. H.R. 1833 aims to do just
that.
Today is Missing Child Day. It is tragic that we need to recognize
such a day. H.R. 1833 would authorize $10 million for the Customs
Cyber-smuggling Center so that customs can step up protection of our
children from on-line predators and pedophiles. Part of this
authorization would go to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children's cyber tipline that handles calls and on-line reports of
sexual exploitation of children.
While I am on this portion of the bill, I would like to pay tribute
to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)
because she was the one that was in the vanguard of incorporating these
provisions dealing with trying to monitor pornography on the Internet.
She deserves the overwhelming credit of one and all on a bipartisan
basis for her work. She will elaborate more fully later.
H.R. 1833 also includes more than $400 million over the President's
budget request for drug interdiction in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001. This funding would allow Customs to purchase drug detection
equipment and hire additional inspectors to keep illegal drugs from
crossing our borders into our children's hands.
Customs must also keep our trade moving smoothly. Customs current
Automated Commercial System, ACS, is 16 years old and on the brink of
continual brownouts and shutdowns. This costs the American taxpayer
millions of dollars. Customs has begun building a new system, Automated
Commercial Environment, ACE, but the President did not see fit to
request funding for ACE for fiscal year 2000. Instead, the President
requested a fee that the administration did not justify. The American
public cannot wait for the President, so Congress must take action.
H.R. 1833 does just that. It authorizes $150 million for ACE in fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
H.R. 1833 also makes common-sense changes to Customs officers
overtime pay and nighttime pay. The legislation maintains, and even
increases, some benefits to Customs inspectors in recognition of their
hard work and the valuable services they perform.
{time} 1100
The revisions also correct some anomalies in Customs officers'
overtime and differential pay. Under H.R. 1833, officers would be paid
overtime only for overtime hours worked. Also, officers would be paid
shift differential only for night work instead of daytime work under
the present system. This saves the American taxpayer money.
In short, this legislation will help prevent illegal drugs from
crossing our borders, prevent on-line child pornography, prevent waste
of taxpayers' dollars and prevent delays in moving our trade.
Finally, I note that at the request of the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight we had to drop a provision in the
bill that would put the Commissioner of Customs at the same pay level
as other Treasury Department bureau heads. That provision is the only
provision within the jurisdiction of that committee.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
package and pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this suspension procedure that we use in the House is
supposed to be reserved for bills that are not controversial. Where
there is controversy in the committee or subcommittee, members of the
minority and the majority should have an opportunity to at least
discuss those issues and vote on those issues.
Today we see a violation, a real violation, of that principle,
because here we find a good bill, a bill there that is supposed to
support the United States Trade Represenative's Office, the
International Trade Commission, a bill that the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) worked so hard on to prevent child
pornography, which all of us find repugnant to everything that we
believe in as Americans, as human beings, and we find a real attack
against drug trafficking by providing sophisticated equipment for those
men and women who have dedicated themselves to protect our borders
against these drugs coming into the United States.
Why in God's name then, Mr. Speaker, do we find on the suspension
calendar, incorporated in this bill, that which prevents us from
debating, prevents us from voting for it, a provision that nobody wants
except one or two people in the majority on the committee? Where did it
come from? Where did it start? Where were the hearings? Where was the
reports? Where is the evidence that indicated that Customs inspectors
were overpaid?
It certainly did not come from hearings which we had on this issue
before we voted on this, and even when we were marking up the bill, the
only evidence we had was a staff member from the majority giving us
information that was not available through any official report. Here we
have Customs officials that put their lives on the line each and every
day protecting our borders; three were killed in the line of duty. They
fight every day, they struggle every day, and the commissioner and the
unions were never discussed on this issue, but somebody knew better
than them on the committee and revised it because they did not like the
wording of it in the regulation.
It is not fair, Mr. Speaker, and it comes almost close to being
illegal, to fold something like that, a controversial subject like
that, into a bill that no one politically is prepared to vote against
on the suspension calendar for fear that we would be supporting child
pornography, that we would be supporting drug trafficking, that we
would not support the USTR and the ITC.
There is no excuse for this being included in this bill. It divided
our committee, it divides our subcommittee, and it is things like this
that cause divisions in the House of Representatives.
We knew why these people were paid overtime pay, we know the reasons
they were done, and it is because, unlike other federal law enforcement
officers, the Customs do not give and we did not provide the same type
of benefits that law enforcement officials get. They do not get the 20-
year pension retirement, they do not get a whole lot of perks that law
enforcement officials get, and this was folded into their pay in order
to compensate for the fact that some do law enforcement work and they
do not get paid law enforcement salaries.
Was it controversial? Ask anybody on the majority whether it was
controversial. So, why should it be included in this suspension
calendar in a bill that certainly is without controversy? I suspect it
is because they once again want to deny us the opportunity to
reconsider the amendment that was offered in committee and deny us the
opportunity to be able to vote on this issue singularly, like it should
be.
I know that the Committee on Ways and Means has traditionally enjoyed
closed rules when it comes to the House, but this is not a tax issue,
and this is not an issue that is coming to the House in regular form.
It comes to us as a suspension bill, and I am really disappointed that
my committee would see fit to fold a controversial subject into a
suspension bill and deny us the opportunity once again to debate it.
I would just like to say Ray Kelly is the Commissioner of Customs; he
opposes it. The union opposes it, the Secretary of Treasury opposes it,
the administration opposed it, and almost half of the members of the
Committee on Ways and Means opposed it, but we will not get an
opportunity to vote on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and in response to some of the concerns registered, and I can certainly
sympathize with our distinguished colleague, but I do think that we
have put together here a good bill, and it is one
[[Page 10802]]
that in committee the total package enjoyed the support of both sides
of the aisle overwhelmingly. But we are, I think, making some common
sense changes, and at the same time we are maintaining and even
increasing some benefits as Customs inspectors or to Customs inspectors
in recognition of their hard work and the valuable services they
perform. These revisions are identical to those that this committee and
the full House passed overwhelmingly last year.
The night pay reform still keeps Customs officers in a better
position than other federal employees, and the bill does not change
some of the other special benefits that Customs officers receive. For
example, Customs officers receive twice the hourly rate for overtime
while FEPA employees receive only one and a half times the hourly rate.
The night pay reform is not meant to penalize our hard-working Customs
officers. Instead, it is designed to advance common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), our colleague who serves on the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important
legislation today, and first, let me begin by commending my friend and
colleague from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Trade, putting forward a good bill, a bill which was endorsed by
unanimous bipartisan vote, the Committee on Ways and Means just this
past week. I rise in support of this legislation, the Trade Agency
Authorizations, Drug-free Borders, Prevention of On-line Pornography
Act of 1999. It is important legislation designed to protect children
from drugs and child pornographers. Amongst the most important
provisions of H.R. 1833, the bill authorizes $10 million for the Child
Cyber Smuggling Center to provide the U.S. Customs Service with the
necessary tools to prevent child pornography and child sexual
exploitation initiated over the Internet. I also want to commend my
friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)
for her leadership on this issue as she authored the original
legislation that was included in this bill today.
Protecting children from Internet predators is an issue that is
important to the folks back home in the south suburbs of Chicago. This
last year I received a phone call from a mother asking for help in
responding to a situation affecting her 9-year-old daughter. An
Internet predator posted her child's name on several pornographic
Internet sites and in chat rooms and advertised for certain favors. To
protect their daughter, their family was forced to move from their home
and to hide from those they feared would contact them as a result of
this Internet advertising. When they sought the help of local police,
they were told there is no law preventing predators from doing this to
young children. I am proud that legislation I authored, which became
law last year, the Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act
which made it illegal to use the Internet to target an individual under
the age of 16 for sexually explicit messages or contacts, is now law,
and I want to thank this House for the bipartisan support.
Let me explain very clearly with some startling facts and statistics
why this legislation is so important and deserves bipartisan support,
because we should all care about kids, and we should all care about
child pornography and its impact on children. It is estimated that by
the year 2002 more than 45 million children will be on-line with access
to the Internet. The number of child pornography and pedophilia sites
is impossible to determine, but the Center for Missing Children
estimates that are 10,000 web sites maintained by pedophiles while the
CyberAngles organization estimates 17,000 pedophile web sites available
via the Internet. The United States alone law enforcement has
confiscated more than 500,000 indecent images, photos of children, some
as young as 2 years of age, and since January 1 of 1998 federal law
enforcement has arrested over 460 adults for Internet-related child
sexual exploitation offenses.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to protect kids from child
pornography, to protect children from being exploited by those who
would prey on them via the Internet. This legislation gives the United
States Customs Service the tools they need. It deserves bipartisan
support. Let us protect the kids from pornographers.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the objective of H.R. 1833
to provide the U.S. Customs Service with the resource it needs to
safeguard our borders and to put a stop to the spread of child
pornography on-line. The men and women of the U.S. Customs Service
perform vital functions with respect both to law enforcement and
preserving the integrity of U.S. trade with foreign nations there on
the front line.
Much of this bill is devoted to authorizing the appropriation of
funds for the acquisition of sophisticated narcotics detection
equipment by the Customs Service. Ironically, however, Section 123 (b)
would cut the pay of some of the very people who will be operating that
equipment. The current pay structure for Customs inspectors and
officers was put into place in 1993. It was designed to reflect the
unusual demands of inspectors' and officers' jobs, the odd hours, the
unpredictability of schedules, the physical safety risk. Under this
system, if a majority of the hours in an inspector officer's shift
falls within the window from 3 p.m. to 8 a.m., the inspector officer is
paid at a premium rate for the shift. 1833 would change it. Let me just
give my colleagues an example.
For example, take the Customs inspector who regularly works the 3
a.m. to 11 a.m. shift. Assuming that that inspector earns $19.25 per
hour as base pay, his or her premium pay under the current system is
$154 per week. Under H.R. 1833, the premium pay would be reduced by
$96.25 per week, and assuming that shift would work throughout the
year, it would amount to a reduction in pay of $5,000 a year.
Why this provision? It was introduced without adequate consideration
of the adverse impact it would have on actual Customs inspectors and
officers. The sponsors of this provision relied on a report by the
Inspector General that did nothing more than calculate the absolute
increase in night pay differential over a 3-year period since enactment
of the current arrangement.
{time} 1115
The report did not study the cause of that increase, nor did it
purport to find that that increase was unjustified. It was simply an
accounting of the size of the increase.
So what happens? The majority decides to bring this bill under
suspension, with no ability for us to present an amendment. This is a
distortion of the suspension process. The chair of the subcommittee and
others have said this passed unanimously. True, after an amendment was
introduced to strike it, it was debated. We lost it on a straight party
vote, but we had a chance to raise it.
What the majority is doing here is putting forth a bill that is good
in almost all of its provisions and tying in a provision that is not
justified and, I think, is not justifiable. They essentially trapped
the minority, saying if you want to vote against a bill that is
generally good because of one provision and it is a serious one, go
ahead and do it.
Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship should have some meaning in this place.
There is no excuse whatsoever for this procedure. It was tried last
session, the same trick was tried, and what happened? The bill died in
the Senate because of provisions that are not related to the important
work of the Customs force and had nothing to do with child pornography,
which we obviously must be very concerned about.
This is not a tax bill. There is no reason to have this bill brought
on suspension or in any other way that prevents an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about common sense. Common sense and common
decency in a legislative body mean giving people a chance to present an
amendment and debating it. This is not a defensible procedure.
[[Page 10803]]
I suggest that we vote ``aye,'' because the bill, in all but one of
its major provisions, is a strong bill that we should pass. But I just
want the majority here to understand that we resent this procedure.
There is no reason for it. It undermines the bipartisanship that the
majority sometimes says it believes in. We will do what happened last
time. We will march over to the Senate and ask it to extricate this
House from an unfair procedure.
My colleagues may think they are being politically clever, but they
are going to pay for it in terms of feelings between the majority and
the minority.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last year in committee we considered identical provisions on
reforming pay, and my colleagues across the aisle did not move to
strike. I find it difficult now for them to say that we are being
unfair today.
The irony of the current system is that one can receive night pay for
the entire noon-to-8-p.m. shift, but one would receive no night pay for
working a 4-a.m.-to-noon shift, even for those brutal hours between 4
a.m. and 6 a.m., and that makes no sense. This bill would fix this
problem.
Our goal is not to penalize Customs officers, but to correct an
anomaly in the law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not think there is any controversy about the facts between the
majority and the minority. It was opposed last year by the Democrats;
it was opposed by the Commission of Customs, it was opposed by the
union, it was opposed by the employees, and it is still being opposed,
and it has no place in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, there is much good in this bill. As the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) has pointed out, there are a lot of provisions in
here that are extremely important to the Customs Service. H.R. 1833
provides additional resources needed for the U.S. Customs Service to
combat illegal drug activities across our border; it will provide
additional equipment with the latest technology for the antidrug
enforcement provisions. It provides additional funds for the Child
Cyber-Smuggling Center to assist in our efforts to prevent child
pornography.
So there is a lot of good in this bill. We are going to support it. I
think it is going to get a large vote.
But there is bad in this bill. There are provisions that should not
be in here. It amends existing laws concerning the payment of night-
shift pay for our Customs officers.
Let me talk a little bit about what this Congress did before, why we
put shift pay differential in the law. Congress found that these odd
hour shifts that Customs officials are assigned, they do not volunteer,
are assigned as part of their work, have an adverse impact on the
quality of life of Customs officials who are required to work regularly
scheduled shifts at night, on Sundays or holidays. We found, as a body,
that the shift differential compensation levels are substantially
greater than applied generally to other Federal employees for such
regularly scheduled work. So what this legislation is doing is altering
the balance that we took in 1993, and that is just wrong.
U.S. Customs Service performs vital functions of both law enforcement
and preserving the integrity of U.S. trade laws with foreign nations.
The current compensation structure was designed to take account of the
unusual stresses of their job, both on-job safety risks and irregular
work hours. We should honor that, and I agree with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the process should provide us an opportunity as a
body to express our will on the subject. But the process that has been
used by the majority will deny that opportunity today.
Yes, we will support the bill because of the important provisions in
it, but the provision concerning pay differential is wrong; it should
be removed from the bill.
This bill alters the balanced approached crafted in 1993 in two ways.
First, the provision restricts the hours that qualify for the night
shift differential to hours between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Second, the
provision compensates Customs officers at the differential rate only
for those hours that occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. (with one limited
exception), and not the entire shirt. Effectively, these changes will
mean that a Customs officer who works a shift starting at 3 a.m. and
ending at 11 a.m. will receive the shift differential for only 3 hours
of that shift.
To offset some of the loss in pay likely to occur, section 121 of the
bill adjusts the overtime cap that, under current law, restricts the
amount of overtime pay a Customs officer may earn in one year. In
effect, this adjustment would allow Customs officers to work more
overtime to compensate for lost wages, or put another way, Customs
officers will have to work more to get the same pay. Such a result
seems unfair, given that no one (including Customs) has alleged that
Customs officers are overcompensated. Moreover, only a small percentage
of officers currently reach the overtime cap, and therefore would even
benefit from the new provision.
A single report, done in 1996 by the Office of Inspector General
(OIG), has been offered to support this change to night shift
differential pay. That report purportedly reviews the operation of the
night pay differential and the overtime cap since COPRA. The report,
which concludes that the COPRA resulted in an increase in overall
premium night shift differential payments, is, however, seriously
flawed.
First, the OIG report merely calculated the absolute increase in
night differential pay over a three year period. The report did not
investigate the cause of the increase. The OIG's report did not
investigate whether the increase was due to an overall increase in the
number of hours being worked, whether there was an increase in the
number of late shifts being worked due to increased trade, or whether
the increase in cost was attributable to an increase in base wages.
Rather, the OIG report merely concludes that the increase was due to
COPRA without investigating, entertaining or otherwise considering any
other possible reasons for the increase.
Second, the OIG report did not assess the impact on Customs
employees' salaries. As discussed above, the 1993 changes to the
methods of calculating premium night shift differential payments was
part of a comprehensive package of reforms intended to ensure that
Customs officers would receive pay adequate compensation for the hard
and, often dangerous, work they perform. Altering the carefully crafted
package Congress created in 1993 without assessing the impact on
Customs officers' overall pay is irresponsible, and could result in an
unwarranted pay cut for many of these officers. Such a result seems
unfair, given that no one, including OIG and Customs, has alleged that
Customs employees are overpaid. Third, OIG did not find any evidence of
abuse in this system. In fact, to the contrary, the OIG report
specifically states that Customs management did not change work
schedules to allow employees to earn more shift differential pay.
Rather, Customs management continued to schedule shifts to fit
customer's demand.
We are not opposed to considering amendments to Customs officers pay,
if a credible study evaluates and recommends that legislative changes
be made. However, we are opposed to cutting someone's wages based on
report that shows nothing. The men and women of the U.S. Customs
Service perform vital functions with respect to both law enforcement--
keeping drugs and other contraband from crossing our borders--and
preserving the integrity of U.S. trade with foreign nations. Their
current compensation structure was designed to take account of the
unusual stresses of their job--both the on-the-job safety risks and the
irregular hours. We do not believe that there is clear evidence that
those aspects of a Customs officer's job have changed in a way that
would justify reducing their pay, which is precisely what H.R. 1833
will do.
It's too bad, Mr. Speaker. We have a good bill here. We found a flaw
and I believe there would have been a way to address this issue that
would have made both sides of this Congress happy and would have been
supported by the men and women who will actually be affected by our
vote today. I am sorry we missed an opportunity.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me this time.
[[Page 10804]]
There is good news, obviously, and some bad news in regard to H.R.
1833. The good news, as we have heard, is that this bill contains
authorizations for funds which are desperately needed for drug
interdiction, to combat child pornography, and to help the Customs
Department automate its very antiquated computer system.
By the way, with regard to that computer system, which is about 15
years old, it has browned out on several occasions. That means it has
come close to actually blacking out completely. The 6-hour lapse of
that brown-out caused the Customs caseload to increase not 6 hours, but
by 2 weeks. Businesses across the country were thrown off their
schedule for months.
We are desperately in need of updating our computer system at the
Customs Department because of the constantly growing load of import and
export product coming into this country and leaving this country.
Mr. Speaker, there is also bad news with H.R. 1833, and that is that
it contains a provision that has nothing to do with Customs running its
shop well, nothing to do with treating its employees well; and has no
place in this bill, and should not come up through this suspension
process for a vote. Unfortunately, this is a heavy-handed approach to
try to get something done that was not approved by either the employees
of the Customs Department or the Customs Department itself.
Management and labor do not agree with this provision, yet it is in
here. That is a heavy-handed approach to try to impose upon both the
agency and its employees something that they do not believe in. It is
unfortunate that we have to micromanage at this stage a bill that, for
the most part, does great good for the Customs Department.
That agency is in need of our support. Its workload is growing
constantly with regard to trying to interdict drugs. We know the issue
of child pornography and trying to stop it from coming into this
country. Why we would clutter a good bill with a bad provision makes no
sense. But because of the procedural mess we find ourselves in,
unfortunately, we have very little choice. Do we oppose a bill that for
the most part is very good, to make a point, or do we vote for a bill,
understanding that we are providing for legislation the possibility of
enacting a law that would change the rules of the game for employees
who have no say as to their work hours?
It is unfortunate that we are there; it is unfortunate that employees
at Customs find themselves in this situation, not because management at
Customs wants to do this, but because Congress, in its wisdom to
micromanage, has decided to include a provision which they do not want.
If we extract this, this bill would fly without any no votes, I would
suspect. But with this, unfortunately, there are a number of people who
have to pause. Pause because while we want to do good, we do not want
to do bad at the same time. Unfortunately for Customs employees, it
looks like they are going to have to swallow some bad to politically
take the good. That is unfortunate, and it should never happen.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I know this bill is to reauthorize the
Customs Service, and I know the Customs Service has a difficult job.
One of the jobs I wanted to just mention to my colleagues as we are
debating this bill involves a company in my State that imports lots of
items that are under the classification of festive items, Christmas
items. Those items have a different tariff duty than other items do,
and just so the House is aware, recently one of their items, an item
that was an inexpensive music box that played Silent Night, the Customs
folks would not classify that a ``festive item'' because, they said, it
was a music box and because, they said, it played Silent Night instead
of Jingle Bells, I am not sure which. But the code is specific. It
tries to set aside that type of item.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could not ask the Customs Service
to be more reasonable in applying those laws. This is not an expensive
thing; it is not a musical instrument. It is a one-time-a-year use that
happens to play a religious Christmas-type of song.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
reassure my colleague that we will look into it. This is the first I
have heard of it, and it does sound a little bizarre, and I hope it is
just a parochial, isolated case and not universal.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman being willing to
look into it, and I appreciate the time of the Members here today.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While the distinguished subcommittee chairman is looking into the
controversy of Jingle Bells and Silent Night, I hope he might take some
time to read the letter from the Commissioner of Customs, Raymond
Kelly, who indicated on May 25 that he is opposed to this subtitle C,
sections 122, 123 and 124 of the bill that is before us today, and a
bill that apparently we are unable to do anything about.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the subcommittee chairman and
ask him whether or not he would consider reconsidering this provision
since it is a good bill and a lot of people worked hard on this bill.
It helps prevent drugs, it helps prevent the spread of child
pornography, it supports the administration for things that they have
been waiting for, and we want to be able to go over to the Senate and
say it is a good bill and that this provision should be reconsidered.
I hope the majority might consider excluding this provision or
reconsidering this provision in conference, because it is a good piece
of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult it is for the majority to rule with
just six votes in the majority, but I think that is the reason why now
more than ever we should try to work together on those things that we
agree on, because that is what the American people want.
{time} 1130
They do not want to see us coming down here each and every day
fighting each other over things that deal with procedure while they are
working for substantive issues to be passed.
There is no need for us to have had to discuss this provision today,
Mr. Speaker, because it had no place in this bill. If certain
Republicans wanted it that badly, they should have brought it to the
floor and had debate on it. It is just wrong to fold this into the
suspension calendar, which says that it is not a controversial
position.
We can hear what we want from the other side, we can examine the
Record, but no one challenges that the employees did not want this, the
union did not want this, the Commissioner of Customs did not want this,
the President of the United States and his administration did not want
this.
There is not one scintilla of evidence that substantiates the need
for changing this except somebody on the other side of the aisle,
somebody whose name is not in the record, wanted this change, and
waited until the middle of the night on the suspension calendar to fold
it into basically a good bill. It is wrong to do this, and I hope it
does not happen again.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Treasury Inspector General issued
a very rigorous recommendation to end the night pay anomaly back in
1996. The Inspector General went further and asked for a 10 percent pay
differential. Our bill does not go so far and preserves a 15 to 20
percent differential, better than any other Federal employee, in
recognition of the hard work by our Customs employees.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the recommendation of the
Inspector General, since my colleague on the other side of the aisle
thinks this came from us.
He said, ``The Assistant Secretary (Enforcement) should direct
Customs to seek legislation that would lessen the number of hours
available for Customs officers to earn night differential
[[Page 10805]]
and reduce the night work differentials to a 10 percent premium on base
pay.'' As I said, that is in contrast to our 15 to 20 percent.
``The change to the COPRA should create a night differential payment
package that would more accurately reimburse Customs officers for hours
actually worked at night, as was done previously under the FEPA. We
believe guidance similar to the FEPA would accomplish this purpose.''
So this is not new. That was 1996 when that recommendation was made.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly recite some other facts of the
Customs bill that deals with trying to curb the abuses by pedophiles on
the Internet.
In the United States alone, law enforcement has confiscated more than
500,000 indecent images of children, some as young as 2 years old.
Since January 1 of last year, Federal law enforcement has arrested over
460 adults for Internet-related child sexual exploitation offenses, and
according to some police estimates, as many as 80,000 child pornography
files are traded online every week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), our distinguished colleague who is
responsible for that precious component of this legislation.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this legislation and its many provisions to improve the effectiveness
of the Customs Office, but I will focus my comments on the provisions
of this bill that strengthen Custom's ability to combat cyber
predators.
The Internet has revolutionized the way we learn, communicate, and
even shop. It is making a reality of equal opportunity by providing
truly equal access to information and the power that knowledge confers.
But there is a dark side to the Internet that we must confront. Parents
need to know that just as there are dangerous areas in every city,
there are dangerous sites on the Internet. We need to do a better job
of protecting our children from entering a website or chatroom that
could lead them to harm.
The old question of ``Do you know where your child is'' has a whole
new meaning in the age of cyperspace. Most people are not aware that
the Internet is now the number one choice, the number one choice, of
predators as a means of preying on children and trafficking in child
pornography.
There are an estimated 10,000 websites maintained by pedophiles.
Trading in images of child pornography on the Internet takes place 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. Let us make no mistake about it, these
people are out there lurking in cyberspace, and any child on the
Internet could fall prey to these pedophiles.
Roughly 12 million children use the Internet every day, spending an
average of 8 hours a week in chatrooms where they can come into contact
with online pedophiles. The danger of these chatrooms is that they
provide sex predators with a forum to prey on unsuspecting kids who
cannot see who is behind the screen on the other end of the line.
When I go into fifth grade classrooms, I ask those kids, what does
your mom tell you about talking to strangers? And they all know the
answer. What do your folks tell you about getting into the cars of
strangers? And their little faces just light up, because they know they
should not do that and they will not do that, and that I can count on
them, that they will not do that.
It is a new world. We have to understand the new rules, and just as
our kids will not talk to a stranger or get in the car of a stranger,
we have to teach them not to go into the chatrooms, where everyone is a
stranger.
These cyber predators use their anonymity to lure our children out of
their homes to meet people solely for the purpose of sexual assault.
Sexual predators used to lurk around the schoolyard. Now they lurk in
our living rooms, they lurk in our children's bedrooms, they lurk
wherever we have our computer terminal.
Listen to the Hartford Current of February 18, 1999: ``A 31-year-old
Enfield man was arrested Wednesday on charges that he sexually
assaulted a 12-year-old East Hartford girl he met on America Online
chatroom.
She told the police, and I am skipping forward, she told them that
she had met Ed in the chatroom on America Online, and that they had
graphic sexual discussions over the Internet. She identified herself to
him as Veronica, which was not her real name. They would talk for hours
at night while the girl's mother was at work and she was babysitting
for her younger sister.
On February 4, they arranged to meet in the parking lot of the East
Hartford apartment complex so her mother would not know.
Kids think this is a game, like so many other games they play on
television. This did not turn out to be a game for this kid. This
turned out to be a terrible experience.
These cyber predators use their anonymity to lure our children out of
our homes for the sole purpose of sexual assault. This legislation will
help the Customs Service expand their work in combatting cyber
predators and purveyors of child pornography.
They have done a phenomenal job. They have gotten a conviction of
every single arrest. But they need better funding, they need more
people, and they need more authority. This Congress is working on all
three of those fronts.
This bill authorizes better funding of the child pornography and
child sexual exploitation program that is designed to capture online
pedophiles, and it would also better fund the operation of the child
pornography cyber tip line run by the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children that helps identify and locate online predators.
As more kids go online every day, we need to ensure their safety. It
is time to let online pedophiles know that they can no longer hide
behind our computer screens. I urge support of this legislation, and
full funding of the needed $10 million in the appropriations process.
I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his long work on this
and for his leadership.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1\1/2\
minutes in support of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Is there objection to each side
being granted an additional 1 minute for debate?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) is
recognized to control 1 minute.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise for 2 reasons: First, to applaud the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her efforts to help the
U.S. Customs Service battle against child exploitation on the Internet,
and second, to support the provisions of her legislation included in
H.R. 1838.
Child pornography was a worldwide industry that was all but
eradicated in the 1980s, but the explosive growth of computer
technology via e-mail, chatrooms, and news groups have created a bigger
demand for pornographic pictures of our children on the information
superhighway.
Congress must step up to the plate and take some action to stem the
growing tide of child exploitation on the Internet. In February, I
introduced a bill to authorize $5 million to appropriate each year for
the next 4 fiscal years to fund the Cyber Smuggling Center.
Until that bill reaches the floor, I would ask Members' complete
support for H.R. 1838, which contains provisions championed by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), including the addition of
$100,000 for the Cyber Smuggling Center for fiscal year 2000.
I urge all of the Members, on this National Missing Children's Day,
to support the Customs Service's fight against child pornography on the
Internet by voting in favor of H.R. 1833.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is
recognized for 1 minute in closing.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield my final 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Speaker.
[[Page 10806]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this commonsense legislation. It is
about time that we have the opportunity here today on this floor to
move legislation that will, as my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said, begin the process of patrolling what
is happening with pornography, of being able to work on drugs coming
into this country, being able to do what every one of our constituents
back in our districts at town meetings across this country have told
us, that we need to do a better job at our borders.
We finally have the opportunity to pass this commonsense reform
today. Yet, for some strange reason there seems to be some lingering
technicality out there with regard to this legislation which is making
it very difficult for all of the very positive reasons for maybe some
of the Democrats to not support this legislation.
I would implore those who are listening in their offices and getting
ready to come over to consider voting for this that it is time that
they put their word and deeds where the actions of our constituents
have requested us to, and that is to pass this commonsense reform for
our Customs Service.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my
colleague from Illinois, Representative Crane, for his hard work in
bringing this important legislation forward early on in this Congress.
H.R. 1833 will provide the U.S. Customs Service with additional tools
to prevent illegal drugs from entering our nation. This is a vital bill
that will go a long way in winning the war on drugs but the most
valuable asset of any agency is its workforce.
Unfortunately, H.R. 1833 also contains a provision which I believe
will seriously harm the morale of our Customs agents and impede our
ability to recruit qualified individuals. H.R. 1833 contains a
provision that restricts the hours during which customs agents can earn
night shift differential pay to between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Currently, Customs agents earn night shift differential pay between the
hours of 3 p.m. and 8 a.m. The Customs Agency is the only federal
agency where employees work a constantly changing shift. For example,
employees work days for two weeks, then evenings, then nights. Night
shift differential pay is a standard law enforcement benefit and one of
the few federal law enforcement benefits extended to Customs agents.
If this bill passes the House, we will reduce the amount of pay at
Customs agent earns by an average of $96.00 a week or $5000.00 a year.
A Customs agent making $40,000 a year will face a reduction in pay of
nearly 12%. Do we really want to tell Customs agents that we are only
willing to spend more money on desperately needed equipment to fight
the war on drugs if they give up a portion of their yearly salary? I
think not, this provision sends entirely the wrong message to these
brave men and women.
Moreover, I have serious concerns that this provision says to Customs
agents that they can make up for the lost night shift differential pay
due to enhancements in overtime benefits. But in order to earn back
lost pay, an individual would be required to work more than forty hours
a week. This is simply wrong. We would be telling these federal workers
that they must spend greater and greater amounts of time away from
their family just to meet their current needs. Again, this is backwards
and contrary to the family values we should be promoting. This
provision sends the wrong message to the indvidiuals who play a
significant role in protecting our border and our entire nation from
shipments of illegal drugs.
During the week of May 10th, a Customs Agent was shot on his way home
from work by an individual who had targeted him as a law enforcement
official. The Federal Government does not extend most law enforcement
officer benefits to Customs Agents. This bill would limit one of the
few law enforcement benefits that Customs Agents receive.
I am greatly disappointed that H.R. 1833 is on the Suspension
Calendar today, and that we do not have the opportunity to even offer
an amendment that would have removed section 123(b), the new night
shift differential pay provisions. I think that Members of this House
deserve the opportunity to support this important bill while also
supporting our U.S. Customs Agents.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank my colleague,
Representative Crane for all of his work in bringing H.R. 1833 forward
and express my profound disappointment in the currently included night
shift differential pay provisions. I believe we need to strengthen the
Customs Agency if we are going to stop illegal drugs from entering our
Country and we must do all that we can to protect our children.
However, we must not say to Customs Agents that their tireless efforts
are insufficient, and that equipment counts more than the personnel. I
firmly hope that we can work our differences out when this bill goes to
Conference with the Senate.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We all oppose child
pornography. We all want to fight drugs. But why include provisions to
cut our Customs officers' pay in this important bill?
This does not make sense! How can you ask Customs employees--who
enforce more laws than any other federal officers--to be more effective
when you open the door to cutting some of their pay up to $96 a week?
Giving employees $5,000 less pay in a year is an incentive to help them
do their jobs better?
The bill undermines the partnership that has flourished between
Customs personnel and their managers in the successful drug
interdiction efforts. How does cutting Customs employees pay for
working their regular night shifts help bolster our War on Drugs?
I support the provisions of H.R. 1833 that would increase the number
of Customs Service employees along the border and provide Customs with
state-of-the-art drug detection equipment. I support the $10 million to
prevent the imports of on-line child pornography. But I reject the
provisions that cut Customs hazardous pay for essential nighttime
shifts.
H.R. 1833 gives us tools to fight the War on Drugs, but puts those
who will use the tools in straitjackets. We will lose the War on Drugs
and waste taxpayers' money if we spend money on expensive, cutting-edge
equipment at the same time we undermine employee morale and labor
standards.
I support the frontline soldiers in the War on Drugs--our Customs
personnel--and urge support for legislation that enhances, rather than
detracts, from their good work.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise
in support of H.R. 1833. This bill reauthorizes the U.S. Trade
Representative and Custom offices as well as increase efforts to patrol
our borders and protect the Internet from online predators.
H.R. 1833 affects agricultural trade with its authorization of the
United States Trade Representative. I support this bill and I believe
this bill is an opportunity to urge the Ways and Means Committee to
work with me to reform our sugar subsidy problem. I have introduced
with Congressman George Miller (D-CA) H.R. 1850, the Sugar Program
Reform Act. The Miller-Miller bill would phase out the sugar program by
the end of 2002.
The sugar program is the ``sugar daddy'' of corporate welfare. Why?
Because most of the benefits of this program go to huge corporate sugar
producers, not the typical family farmer.
The sugar program's sole purpose is to prop up the price of sugar in
the United States through a complex system of low-interest, nonrecourse
loans and tight import restrictions. In fact, the price of sugar in the
United States today is roughly four times as high as the price of sugar
world wide.
As a result, the sugar program imposes a ``sugar tax'' on consumers,
forcing them to more than $1 billion in higher prices for food and
sugar every year.
It devastates the environment, particularly the fragile Everglades in
my home State of Florida. Higher prices for sugar have encouraged more
and more sugar production in the Everglades Agricultural Area, leading
to high levels of phosphorus-laden agricultural runoff flowing into the
Everglades, which has damaged the ecosystem.
It has cost many Americans their jobs because it has restricted the
supply of sugar that is available on the American market, resulting in
the closure of a dozen sugar refineries across the country.
Finally, it hampers our ability to expand trade opportunities for
America's farmers. It is hypocritical for the United States to protect
domestic sugar production while urging other countries to open their
agricultural markets. America loses leverage in trade negotiations as a
result.
I am not here to talk about my bill, but to raise the issues of trade
in H.R. 1833. This bill reauthorizes funding for the United States
Trade Representative. The USTR is charged with helping to enforce trade
laws and to break down barriers around the world. As a matter of fact,
there will be important trade talks in Seattle later this year to
discuss eliminating trade barriers. However, the USTR will head into
Seattle with little credibility as long as the U.S. sugar program is in
existence.
At Seattle, our USTR will try to have foreign nations lower their
subsidies claiming that subsidies are unfair to consumers, taxpayers
and trading nations. At the same time, the U.S. will greatly impair the
ability of foreign sugar to come into this huge market because of our
crazy sugar policy. This double standard will
[[Page 10807]]
greatly affect our ability to argue the benefits of no trade barriers.
All countries will try to protect their favorite subsidy or tariff as
long as the United States maintains its indefensible defense of the
sugar barons. I am hopeful that passage of this legislation will give
the USTR the resources necessary to break down foreign barriers while
educating all policy makers on the importance of lowering our own
barriers on sugar.
The sugar program is an archaic, unnecessary government handout to
corporate sugar producers at the expense of consumers, workers, and the
environment. It is truly deserving of reform. I hope the USTR will work
to eliminate the double standard of the sugar program.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1833.
While this bill contains many worthy provisions, there are a number
of provisions contained in H.R. 1833 of particular importance to my
constituents in South Florida. For example, the bill directs the
following additional resources to Florida and Gulf Coast ports: $4.5
million for 6 vehicle and container inspection systems; $11.8 million
for 5 mobile truck x-rays; $7.2 million for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays;
$0.25 million for portable contraband detectors; and $0.3 million for
25 contraband detection kits.
The bill also authorizes a net increase of 40 inspectors at
southeastern Florida seaports (Port of Miami, Port Everglades, and Port
of Palm Beach) to process and screen cargo.
In sum, this bill renews Congress' commitment to interdict drugs in
Florida. For too long, Customs resources have been diverted to the
southwestern border and Puerto Rico while drugs have poured into
Florida. This bill begins to rectify that situation.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1833 is an excellent bill, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1833, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. CRANE. 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.
____________________
CONCERNING TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF TIANANMEN SQUARE MASSACRE
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 178) concerning the tenth anniversary of the
Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, in the People's Republic of
China.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 178
Whereas the United States was founded on the democratic
principle that all men and women are created equal and
entitled to the exercise of their basic human rights;
Whereas freedom of expression and assembly are fundamental
human rights that belong to all people and are recognized as
such under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
Whereas the death of the former General Secretary of the
Communist Party of the People's Republic of China, Hu
Yaobang, on April 15, 1989, gave rise to peaceful protests
throughout China calling for the establishment of a dialogue
with government and party leaders on democratic reforms,
including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the
elimination of corruption by government officials;
Whereas after that date thousands of prodemocracy
demonstrators continued to protest peacefully in and around
Tiananmen Square in Beijing until June 3 and 4, 1989, until
Chinese authorities ordered the People's Liberation Army and
other security forces to use lethal force to disperse
demonstrators in Beijing, especially around Tiananmen Square;
Whereas nonofficial sources, a Chinese Red Cross report
from June 7, 1989, and the State Department Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices for 1989, gave various estimates of
the numbers of people killed and wounded in 1989 by the
People's Liberation Army soldiers and other security forces,
but agreed that hundreds, if not thousands, of people were
killed and thousands more were wounded;
Whereas 20,000 people nationwide suspected of taking part
in the democracy movement were arrested and sentenced without
trial to prison or reeducation through labor, and many were
reportedly tortured;
Whereas human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch,
Human Rights in China, and Amnesty International have
documented that hundreds of those arrested remain in prison;
Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China
continues to suppress dissent by imprisoning prodemocracy
activists, journalists, labor union leaders, religious
believers, and other individuals in China and Tibet who seek
to express their political or religious views in a peaceful
manner; and
Whereas June 4, 1999, is the tenth anniversary of the date
of the Tiananmen Square massacre: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) expresses sympathy to the families of those killed as a
result of their participation in the democracy protests of
1989, as well as to the families of those who have been
killed and to those who have suffered for their efforts to
keep that struggle alive during the past decade;
(2) commends all citizens of the People's Republic of China
who are peacefully advocating for democracy and human rights;
and
(3) condemns the ongoing and egregious human rights abuses
by the Government of the People's Republic of China and calls
on that government to--
(A) reevaluate the official verdict on the June 4, 1989,
Tiananmen prodemocracy activities and order relevant
procuratorial organs to open formal investigations on the
June fourth event with the goal of bringing those responsible
to justice;
(B) establish a June Fourth Investigation Committee, the
proceedings and findings of which should be accessible to the
public, to make a just and independent inquiry into all
matters related to June 4, 1989;
(C) release all prisoners of conscience, including those
still in prison as a result of their participation in the
peaceful prodemocracy protests of May and June 1989, provide
just compensation to the families of those killed in those
protests, and allow those exiled on account of their
activities in 1989 to return and live in freedom in the
People's Republic of China;
(D) put an immediate end to harassment, detention, and
imprisonment of Chinese citizens exercising their legitimate
rights to the freedom of expression, freedom of association,
and freedom of religion; and
(E) demonstrate its willingness to respect the rights of
all Chinese citizens by proceeding quickly to ratify and
implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights which it signed on October 5, 1998.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
General Leave
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for drafting this
important legislation. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) for his support of the legislation.
I strongly support House Resolution 178, a resolution concerning the
10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, in
the People's Republic of China. Our government's policy concerning the
People's Republic of China has failed to promote human rights in China.
{time} 1145
It has failed to promote our national security and failed to ensure a
modicum of trade fairness.
The arrest, the executions, the torture and imprisonment of
prodemocracy activists in China, occupied Tibet and East Turkestan
continue unabated. The government in Beijing is just as determined as
ever to distort the truth and prevent that truth from getting out.
Just yesterday the Washington Post reported that, in an effort to
ensure that there are no demonstrations regarding the anniversary of
the massacre, they arrested Yang Tao, a student leader of the 1989
demonstrations.
One campaigner who has led the effort to give compensation for and
urged a government apology to the families of the victims of the
massacre has been under virtual house arrest since May 4.
An AP report mentioned that Beijing is trying to stop internet news
in China
[[Page 10808]]
regarding the massacre in Tiananmen Square.
But coming to grips with reality is not just a problem facing
Beijing. For too long, we have failed to respond adequately to the
challenge of the People's Republic of China represents.
We hope that with the release of the Cox Report today, our Nation
will begin to address this serious issue. Accordingly, I urge my
colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend the gentlewoman from San
Francisco, California (Ms. Pelosi) for her leadership on this issue, as
well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), and many
others.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to take a moment to remember Tiananmen
Square. Ten years ago on the 4th of June, thousands and thousands of
democratically inclined students and citizens of China demonstrated
peacefully. On that fateful day, the full force of the Chinese military
and security apparatus came down on them with brutality and ferocity of
incredible proportions.
Thousands were killed. Tens of thousands were injured. Thousands were
imprisoned. There came a dark night in China for all who were hoping
for some measure of human rights.
When we introduced this legislation to commemorate the 10th
anniversary of this outrage against all standards of civilized conduct,
we merely wanted to do just that, to call attention to the fact that 10
years ago, this outrage occurred.
But there is an additional outrage that occurred just a few weeks ago
which I believe is highly relevant to this resolution. When the United
States, by mistake, bombed the Embassy of China in Belgrade, the
Chinese Government engaged in a degree of cynical and hypocritical
manipulation of both its own public opinion and global public opinion.
They never told the Chinese people that NATO's air strikes were in
response to the killing and mass rape and expulsion of over a million
and a half ethnic Albanians. When this mistake occurred, for which the
United States apologized at the highest levels, they claimed that the
hit on the Embassy of China in Belgrade was not a mistake but a
deliberate act of atrocity.
This, Mr. Speaker, underscores the obvious fact. This Communist
totalitarian dictatorship has not changed since that fateful day on
June 4, 1989. It continues to lie, to fabricate to its own people and
to the rest of the world.
By this attempt, it tries to equate morally the deliberate killing of
thousands of democracy-loving Chinese citizens at Tiananmen Square with
the inadvertent killing of three innocent journalists at the embassy in
Belgrade. The civilized world will not allow this attempt at moral
equivalence to succeed.
The Chinese Communist government stands self-condemned before the
court of global public opinion, both for what it did at Tiananmen
Square 10 years ago and what it has been doing the last few weeks,
attempting to destroy the functioning Embassy of the United States in
Beijing, encouraging mobs of Chinese to attack the embassy, to keep its
staff and our ambassador captive, and to engage in the most cynical
manipulation of its media and the media of the world.
We are here to commemorate the fallen heroes of Tiananmen Square.
When my colleagues come to my office, Mr. Speaker, in the entry hall
there is that forever to be remembered poster of a single unarmed
Chinese student facing down a column of tanks, the most poignant
reminder of human courage and dignity against overwhelming odds.
While that student may have been killed, as were thousands of others,
the cause of freedom has not been extinguished in China. The future
belongs to the students and citizens of China who, even under these
impossible conditions, are insisting on freedom of speech, freedom of
press, freedom of religion, the right to make their own decisions about
their own future.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and I ask unanimous consent that
he be permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly delighted to yield as much
time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), who has been a leader on this issue for many years in the
Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time and for his very generous comments. They are
reciprocated by me in terms of his leadership on this issue for the
past 10 years, really for his whole life, as a champion of human rights
throughout the world.
I want to also thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his
steadfastness.
Ten years have gone by, and we have been working on this issue a
very, very long time. I wish the outcome, this 10 years later, would be
a better one to report on human rights in China. But I thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership over the years
and in the recent days in moving this legislation out of the committee.
I appreciate that very much.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, we cannot thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) enough for her continued, diligent effort in
reminding the entire Congress of the violations of human rights in
China, particularly when we discussed most favored nation with China. I
hope our colleagues will be reminded of that in our next debate on most
favored nation for China.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the most enduring
images of the 20th Century is the picture of the lone man before the
tank in Tiananmen Square. The distinguished gentleman from San
Francisco, California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned it as an icon that is in
the entrance of his office.
It is a constant reminder to all of us of the courage of the young
people in Tiananmen Square, and of course of the sadness that the human
rights situation has not improved in China yea these many years.
In fact, the policy of our country which was to provide trickle down
liberty. If economics goes well and trade goes well, then the political
freedom will follow. That simply has not happened. In fact, for all of
our concessions to the Chinese, our trade deficit has gone from, $2
million when we started this debate, to this year when it will be well
over $60 billion with China.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China still
continues, no matter what anyone tells us. Of course we are witnessing
the abuse of the good nature of our President with the violations by
the Chinese on proliferation, trade, and the continuing violations of
the human rights of people there.
As a tribute to the brave dissidents who gave their lives, risked
their personal security, and continue to do so in China, and in
commemoration of the 10-year anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre, I was pleased to join my colleagues, some of who are present
here, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the
gentleman from
[[Page 10809]]
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and others who, being lead sponsors on
this resolution. A resolution that is not about economics, it is not
about politics, it is about remembering.
It is about remembering the challenge that these young people
undertook in the spring of 1989. Millions of Chinese students and
workers across China demonstrated peacefully for freedom of expression
and the elimination of corruption by government officials.
On June 3, the Chinese regime responded to these peaceful
demonstrations by ordering the People's Liberation Army to use lethal
force on the protesters around Tiananmen Square. Hundreds, if not
thousands, we do not know the number because the Chinese Government
will not give us access to that, were slaughtered in that night of
horror. Thousands more were injured, and over 20,000 prisoners of
conscience were arrested and sentenced without trial, to prison, to
labor camps, and to years of torture.
Prisoners of conscience tell us that one of the most extricating
painful forms of torture occurs when the perpetrators of their torture
tell them that no one even knows about them, cares about them, or cares
about the cause for which they are in prison.
The purpose of our legislation, which has strong bipartisan support
in the House, I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation with my
colleague whom I respect so much, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), has strong bipartisan support in the House and in the United
States Senate. The purpose of this legislation is to tell the prisoners
and their torturers and the Chinese regime and the world that the
American people remember.
We remember the brave students who modeled their Goddess of Democracy
after our own Statue of Liberty. We remember how the brave students
echoed the words of our Founding Fathers in their courageous appeals to
the regime. We remember the regime's responding with guns and tanks to
crush the peaceful demonstrations. We remember today the many political
prisoners who still languish these 10 years later in Chinese prisons.
Our legislation parallels the petition being circulated by the
Tiananmen leader Wang Dan and the global campaign for the anniversary
of June 4. The petition calls on the Chinese Government to reverse the
verdict of Tiananmen Square, to free the prisoners, to allow them and
all Chinese to speak freely, and to allow for the return of the Chinese
exiles.
The petition has been endorsed by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, and International Pen, to name a few organizations.
On the day we introduced our Tiananmen resolution, the Chinese
Government arrested dissidents for planning to distribute leaflets
seeking redress for the massacre. The location of these pro-democratic
activists is still unknown. That same day, a member of the banned China
Democratic Party was beaten and stripped of his clothes by the police
for merely speaking about democracy in a public park.
At the same time, the regime, speaking through a signed editorial in
the People's Daily, the official Chinese newspaper, claimed that
overseas dissidents, exiles, and escapees are ``crowing'' at the
``murder'' of their compatriots who died in the NATO bombing of the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.
What a pathetic commentary on the Beijing regime, that it feels
threatened by dissidents in China and abroad!
{time} 1200
The regime has the power of their military and security forces at
home and they have their economic partners abroad and supporters,
including the U.S. Government, bowing to their every whim, and yet they
are still frightened.
And speaking of the U.S. Government, while we have bowed to their
every whim, sad to say, the Chinese have not returned any friendship to
the Clinton administration.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out, when the
stupid mistake of bombing the embassy occurred, the President
apologized and apologized and apologized and apologized, but his
friends in the regime whom he visited and gave great face to last year,
would not even let the Chinese people know that the President had
apologized. And they participated in the orchestration of rocks being
thrown at our embassy for 3 days, one of our consulates being set on
fire, and the ambassador, in his own words, being a hostage in the
embassy. This, after we have, as a government, catered to their every
whim.
And I might say that the President's apology was exceptional, because
we usually do not apologize when we do not do something intentional.
This was a mistake; it was not intentional.
It might be of interest to our colleagues to know that when 20
Europeans were killed in a ski lift accident, which occurred in Italy,
the United States of America expressed regret. And when we had the
problem in Iran, when we mistakenly killed Iranian civilians, President
Reagan expressed regret. So an apology is an intensified response to
this accidental and mistaken bombing. The Chinese Government would not
even accept what the President of the United States was stooping to in
this case.
I certainly think the Chinese people deserve to be apologized to or
have our regrets extended to them. We should make reparations, we
should investigate how the bombing took place, but we should not extend
any favors to them on the economic front like premature entry into the
WTO unless under commercially viable terms, and we should not ignore
their continued violations of human rights in China.
Our President went to China last year. He went to the extreme step of
leading the People's Liberation Army band with a baton. He gave face to
the regime and came back with a message that this was going to help
improve democratic freedoms in China. It has not. It has not.
On the heels of the President's visit, people who supported the China
Democracy Party felt emboldened, spoke out, and they are now in prison.
I know I have taken a great deal of time, but with the Chairman's
indulgence, I would like to read some of the names of the people still
in prison right now. Xu Wenli, for example, a leader of the China
Democracy Party was arrested immediately upon speaking out. In addition
we are remembering about people who are still in prison 10 years later
for their activities at the time of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Cao Yingyuan, Chang Jingqiang, Chang Yongjie, Chen Dongxiang, Chen
Qiulong, Chen Yanbin. And it is a long, long, long list, Mr. Speaker,
and I am going to submit it for the Record. It is a list compiled by
Human Rights in China, an organization dedicated to freeing the
prisoners arrested at that time.
human rights in china
Beijing Citizens Still in Prison in Connection With 1989 June Fourth
Crackdown
Ten years after the Beijing Massacre and subsequent
crackdown, hundreds remain in prison for their role in the
1989 protests. The list below contains the names of 144
individuals from Beijing alone who are serving lengthy prison
sentences for their participation in the 1989 democracy
movement.
This information was primarily compiled by Li Hai, 44, a
former Beijing student who was arrested in 1995 for making
the list public. He was subsequently sentenced to a nine-year
prison term for ``prying into and gathering'' ``state
secrets.''
The individuals listed below include a wide variety of
Beijing residents--from peasants, security guards and factory
workers to engineers and cadres in the State Planning
Commission. At the time of their arrest, they ranged in age
from 17 to 71. In the official propaganda, these
demonstrators were called ``rioters,'' and were charged with
``arson,'' ``hooliganism,'' ``disturbing social order,'' and
other criminal offenses. For the most part they are people
who were seen on television screens around the world in May
1989, marching in the streets, blocking the path of the
troops entering the city with improvised barricades, running
through the streets on the night of June 3-4, and throwing
rocks and paving stones at tanks and armed personnel
carriers. Many are thought to have been detained merely
because they were out on the streets. In general, these
people were brought to trial more quickly and received more
severe sentences than did the prominent students and
intellectuals who were arrested. The average sentence of
those not given life terms is approximately thirteen years.
[[Page 10810]]
Li Hai, the persons on this list, and the many other
``namesless'' individuals jailed throughout China in
connection with the 1989 crackdown might not be as
internationally well-known as some dissidents, but their
lives and liberty are equally significant.
Human Rights in China submits the following list to
President Clinton for presentation to Prime Minister Zhu
Rongji during his visit.
Human Rights in China urges the Chinese government to
demonstrate its commitment to making genuine improvements in
the human rights situation by releasing all of the prisoners
on this list, as well as the thousands of other political and
religious detainees throughout China.
list of beijing citizens still in prison in connection with 1989
tiananmen square crackdown
Beijing No. 2 Prison: Name, Age--Sentence, Charge (see key
below for charge name).
Cao Yingyuan, 40--10 years, #6; Chang Jingqiang--25, Life,
#4, 5; Chang Yongjie, 31--Susp. death #4, 6, 9; Chen
Dongxiang, 57--14 years #3; Chen Qiulong, 38--13 years, #3;
Chen Yanbin, 23--15 years, #7; Liang Zhaohui, 26, worker--13
years, #4; Liang Zhenyun, 32, auto-mechanic--12 years, #11;
Liang Zhixiang, 25, worker--10.5 years, #4; Liu Changqing,
34--15 years, #4; Liu Chunlong, 26--12 years, #4; Liu
Huaidong, 31, cadre--13 years, #10; Liu Jianwen, 29, worker--
20 years, #11, #10; Liu Kunlun, 43, cadre--13 years, #4; Liu
Quann, 44--15 years, #4, #13; Liu Xu, 28, worker--15 years,
#4; Liu Zhenting, 36, worker in Beijing No. 2 auto plant--17
years, #9; Lu Xiaojun, 36, worker--13 years, #9, #10; Ma
Guochun, 35--11 years, #9, #10.
Ma Lianxi, 44--15 years, #11; Ma Shimin, 26--11 years, #4;
Meng Fanjun, 29, worker--13 years, #11; Mi Yuping, 39,
worker--13 years, #4; Niu Shuliang, 26, worker--12 years, #4;
Niu Zhanping, 43, worker--12 years, #4, #12; Peng Xingguo,
41--15 years, #4; Qiao Hongqi, 38, worker--12 years, #11;
Shan Hui, 28, worker--14 years, #9; Shi Xuezhi, 58--Life, #4;
Song Shihui, 24, worker--11 years, #9, #10; Su Gang, 28,
teacher--15 years, #4; Sun Chuanheng, 28--Life, reduced to 20
years, #2; Sun Hong, 27, worker--Susp. death, #4; Sun Yancai,
32--Life, #9; Sun Yanru, 27--13 years, #9; Sun Zhengang, 33,
worker--14 years, #4; Wang Jian, 30, worker--13 years, #9;
Wang Lianhui, 31--Life, #9; Wang Lianxi, 43, worker--Life,
#4; Wang Xian, 30, worker--Life, #4.
Wang Yonglu, 30, worker--11 years, #11; Wang Yueming, 32--
13 years, #4; Wang Chunmo, 34--11 years, #9; Wang Dongming,
37, worker--13 years, #4; Wu Ruijiang, 28, cadre--13 years,
#9, #10; Xi Haoliang, 27, worker--Susp. death, #4, #5; Xu
Ning, 26, worker--12 years (reduced by 2 years), #4; Yan
Jianxin, 30, worker--11 years, #9, #10; Yang Guanghui, 25--12
years, #4; Yang Jianhua, 38, worker--14 years, #9, #12; Yang
Pu, 34--Susp. death, #4; Yang Yupu, 33--15 years, #4; Yu Wen,
29, worker--12 years, #10; Zhang Baojun, 27--13 years, #4,
#9; Zhang Baoku, 29, worker--12 years, #4; Zhang Baoqun, 32--
Life, #4; Zhang Fukun, 39--Life, #4; Zhang Guodong, 27--Life,
#4; Zhang Kun, 28, worker--11 years, #4; Zhang Maosheng, 30--
Susp. death, #4; Zhang Qijie, 32, worker--Susp. death, #9,
#10, concealing a weapon; Zhang Qun, 27, worker--Life, #4.
#7--Organizing a counterrevolutionary group
#8--Conspiring to subvert the government
Common criminal charges: #9--Robbery; #10--Hooliganism;
#11--Stealing or seizing gun or ammunition; #12--Disturbing
social order; #13--Disrupting traffic.
Notes: (1) Some of the ages of prisoners in Qinghe Farm No.
3 Branch are age at date of arrest; (2) Sentences marked with
an asterisk * could have been subject to reduction or
supplementation; (3) ``Susp. death'' means a death sentence
with a two-year reprieve. This means that if the prisoner has
behaved well during the two-year period, the sentence is
normally commuted to life.
I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the Global Petition
Campaign for the 10th anniversary of the June 4th massacre. It is an
open letter to the Government of the People's Republic of China calling
upon the regime to reverse the verdict of Tiananmen Square. So we are
associating ourselves in the Congress today with the aspirations of
those brave people, including Wang Dan who was imprisoned for his
political beliefs and his participation at the time of Tiananmen and
after; and we are also associating ourselves with those many people who
are still imprisoned.
Free the prisoners. It is 10 years later. What do you have to be
afraid of?
And then in closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that were it not for
this Congress, we really would not be having much to talk about today.
But year in and year out we keep this on the front burner. There is no
story written about China that doesn't talk about the disagreement we
have between at least the Congress of the United States and the Chinese
regime about promoting democratic freedoms.
We do not in this body subscribe to the principle of trickle-down
liberty. We subscribe to what our Founding Fathers established this
country on. Those words of our Founding Fathers were echoed by the
young people in Tiananmen Square. For that, they were crushed by tanks,
and for that, they will be remembered by us in this resolution
remembering Tiananmen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I thank the
gentleman for his indulgence in affording me the opportunity to speak
at this length on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material I referred to
above.
I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the Chinese
activists detained in recent crackdown around June 4.
Yang Tao--Detained May 5, 1999; Present situation unknown. Mr. Yang,
29, is a former student leader of the 1989 Democracy Movement. In 1989,
Yang was listed as #11 on the central governments most wanted list of
21 leaders of the democracy demonstrations. Now based in Guangzhou
city, Guangdong Province, Yang previously served a one-year sentence
for ``instigating a counter-revolutionary rebellion'' for his 1989
activities. Human rights monitors in Hong Kong reported Yang had been
formally arrested on May 24 and faces criminal prosecution for his
recent activism.
Jiang Qisheng--Detained May 19, 1999; Present situation unknown. Mr.
Jiang, 51, is a former graduate student leader of the 1989 Democracy
Movement. Jiang was elected by People's University classmates as a
representative on the ``Dialogue Delegation'' that conveyed student
communications with central government representatives in May 1989. He
served a 17-month sentence for his 1989 activities. Since his release,
Jiang worked closely with Prof. Ding Zilin, the mother of one of the
demonstrators killed on June 4, 1989, and participated in numerous
petition campaigns.
Liu Xianli--Sentenced to four years for inciting to overthrow state
power on May 9, 1999. Mr. Liu was arrested in March 1998 while putting
together a book of interviews with many Chinese democracy and human
rights movement. His secret trial was held in November 1998, but his
sentence was only recently released to his family.
The following are the names of the Chinese worker prisoners still
imprisoned for 1989 democracy activities.
Yu Zhijian--life sentence for counter-revolutionary sabotage. Yu
Zhijian, 31, is a former primary-school teacher from Hunan Province. Yu
gave speeches in Hunan during the early spring in support of the 1989
democratic movement. He traveled to Beijing in May 1989 to join the
demonstrations there. On May 23, Yu and two friends threw ink- and
paint-filled eggs at the portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square. Yu
was sentenced to life in prison in August 1989. According to a 1996
Human Rights Watch report, he was believed to be serving in solitary
confinement at the Lingling Prison in Hunan Province.
Yu Dongyue--20 years for counter-revolutionary sabotage. Yu Dongyue
is a former fine arts editor of the Liuyang News, a city paper of
Liuyang city, Hunan Province. He traveled to Beijing in May 1989 to
join the demonstrations there. On May 23, Yu and two friends threw ink-
and paint-filled eggs at the portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen
Square. Yu was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in August 1989.
He reportedly served at least two years in solitary confinement. He is
said to be serving in Hunan Province Yuanjiang No. 1 Prison. Recent
news articles report Yu ``was suffering severe mental illness.''
Lu Decheng--16 years for counter-revolutionary sabotage. Lu Decheng
is a former worker at the Liuyang (Hunan Province) Public Motors
Company. He traveled to Beijing in May 1989 to join the demonstrations
there. On May 23, Lu and two friends threw ink- and paint-filled eggs
at the portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square. Yu was scentenced so
sixteen years imprsonment in August 1989. He reportedly served at least
two years in solitary confinement. He is said to have been moved from
his original prison in 1992, but no updated informaiton is available.
Chen Zhixiang--10 years for counter-revolutionary propaganda and
incitement. Chen Zhixiang, 33, is a former instructor at the Guangzhou
(Guangdong Province) Maritime Transport Academy. Chen was involved in
the Guangzhou city-wide 1989 democratic protest and arrested in late
1989. He was convicted of ``counter-revolutionary propaganda and
incitement'' in January 1990 and received a ten year sentenced. He is
reportedly held in the Shaoguan Laogai Detachment in Guangdong
Province.
Li Wei--13 years for taking part in a counterrevolutionary group. Li,
a worker at the
[[Page 10811]]
Changchun (Jilin Province) No. 1 Motor Works, joined a `workers' forum'
in 1987 and 1988. In Spring 1989, he joined a number of marches led by
workers at the Changchun No. 1 Motor Works in support of the democratic
movement. Li was detained in June 1989 and convicted of actively taking
part in a counterrevolutionary group'' in November 1990. He was
sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. Chinese authorities confirmed Li's
sentence to the US government in November 1991. He is reportedly being
held in the Liaoning Province Lingyuan No. 2 Laogai Detachment.
Wang Changhuai--13 years for subversion. Wang was the Chairman of the
Hunan Workers Autonomous Federation prior to the crackdown on the
democratic protests of Spring 1989. Formerly a worker at the Changsha
Au tomobile Engine Factory, Wang turned himself in to authorities in
late June 1989. Wang was sentenced to 13 years improsonment for
`subversion'. He is reportedly being held in Hunan Province Yuanjiang
No. 1 Prison.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been
indefatigable in his attempts to promote human rights not just in China
but around the world.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 178, a
resolution concerning the massacre at Tiananmen Square on June 3 and
June 4 of 1989. Next week marks the 10th anniversary of that historic
tragic event, and so the Chinese Government ought to know we are not
going to forget about it. But more importantly, we want the men and
women who are still in jail to know.
And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). He and I
visited Beijing Prison Number One, where we saw 40 Tiananmen Square
prisoners working on socks to export to the United States.
Also, by us doing this and the Congress voting this way, it sends a
message the same way we did to Sharansky. When Sharansky was in Perm
Camp 35, he told us he knew every time the United States Congress spoke
out on behalf of him and other Soviet dissidents. It encouraged them
and emboldened them and let them know that the West cared and was going
to stand with them no matter what.
So it has been a decade since the crackdown, but we are not going to
forget.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that the persecution of
the church and the persecution in Tibet still continues unabated in
China. They have Catholic priests in jail, Catholic bishops in jail;
they have plundered Tibet, they are persecuting the Buddhist monks,
they are persecuting the Muslims in the northwest portion of the
country. So in addition to commemorating the 10th anniversary, to
letting the Tiananmen Square demonstrators know we stand in solidarity,
it also sends a message that this government has not changed.
I am convinced that the Chinese Government cannot last much longer. I
am convinced they will go the way of the Ceausescu administration. In
fact, they must have found Ceausescu's playbook because everything
Ceausescu did against the church they are doing against the church.
Everything Ceausescu did against the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square
in Bucharest, they are doing.
And so this government and all of us here, all of us in this body,
will live to see the day that they fall. And one day in China, in the
not too distant future, the good people of China, and they are good
people, will be free, able to choose their leaders in democracy and
free elections and they will free the press and have freedom of
worship.
Until then, we applaud all those fighting inside China to keep the
struggle for human rights and democracy alive. We call on the Chinese
Government to show its respect for human rights by releasing all of the
prisoners of conscience. If we were to wake up tomorrow or in
celebration of the anniversary and were to see they were to release all
of the prisoners of conscience, that may make a big difference in this
country. But until they do that, we will remember.
Lastly, for the administration and Members of Congress on both sides
of the aisle to talk about giving this country Most Favored Nation
trading status is absolutely crazy. And after the Cox report, released
today, if we have a vote on MFN, it ought to go down overwhelmingly.
And, quite frankly, the administration ought not even send anything up.
But more importantly, back to the brave young men and women and their
families, we will remember and stand with them in solidarity and will
celebrate in victory in Tiananmen Square when freedom comes to China.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself strongly with the remarks of
all the previous speakers, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). And I
want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in drafting this
legislation. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H. Res. 178, which many of us
want to see passed unanimously today. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, the
ground at Tiananmen Square was hallowed by the blood of thousands of
peaceful democracy advocates. Those Chinese patriots were slaughtered
by a Communist regime that remains defiantly unapologetic for its
actions and that continues to deny the very truth of what happened.
I was gravely disappointed last year when the President of the United
States and our country, which more than any other in the world ought to
bear the standard of freedom and democracy and do so very, very
diligently, met at that very site with the dictators who continued to
lie about the murders committed less than a decade ago. In December of
1996, Mr. Speaker, General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister of the
People's Republic of China and the operational commander of the forces
that attacked the pro-democracy demonstrators, we call him the
``Butcher of Beijing,'' was invited to the United States by the Clinton
administration.
During his visit he was given full military honors, a 19-gun salute,
visits to several military bases and a tour of Sandia Nuclear
Laboratory. And I would just say parenthetically, the Cox report
suggests that that visit probably was not needed. He even had a
personal meeting, Mr. Speaker, with the President of the United States
at the White House.
He also stated in what he called a responsible and serious manner,
and I quote this, ``Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen
Square.'' He claimed that on June 4th, 1989, the People's Liberation
Army did nothing more violent than pushing. General Chi Haotian said
the only thing they did in Tiananmen Square was push people that he
called hooligans. General Chi's remarkable ``big lie'' statement about
Tiananmen Square helped the American people and the world to understand
what he and his government are really like.
Mr. Speaker, my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights of the Committee on International Relations has had more than a
dozen hearings on China and its repressive human rights regime, and
during one of those, when we heard those outrageous remarks, we very
quickly put together a hearing with people who were there on the
ground--students--and we also had a man that was a journalist from the
People's Daily, who was actually arrested for his honest reporting as
to what had occurred, a Time magazine correspondent, and, like I said,
some of the students. But we also invited General Chi.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I, then the ranking
member, wanted to give the Chinese an opportunity to give an account
for Tiananmen Square. The General was mouthing off to audiences here in
the United States that nobody died. We offered that he come without
delay before the people's body and give an account, because we happened
to have evidence that would prove contrary. General Chi didn't make it.
He didn't show up.
[[Page 10812]]
We offered it to a representative of his government and we also
invited Ambassador Lee for a roundtable discussion, and at the very
last minute, he opted out. C-SPAN, everybody was there to cover it and
there was another empty chair because they do not want to be held
accountable for the atrocities.
Perhaps General Chi, perhaps the ambassador, perhaps any
representative of the government could tell us that there are no
persecuted Christians in China. Perhaps they could tell us there is no
ethnic and religious persecution in Tibet or Xinjiang. Perhaps they
could tell us there is no forced abortions or forced sterilization, no
dying rooms for unwanted children, usually baby girls and usually
handicapped children.
They also perhaps could tell us there is no political suppression or
dissent and no torture. Of course, we would know that is a lie, but it
is about time we held them to account.
At one of our hearings recently, Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International
issued a report card and on every one of the items they came to the
conclusion that there was a total failure by the dictatorship. For
example, release of all Tiananmen Square prisoners and other prisoners
of conscience. Amnesty's response, total failure. Not one Tiananmen
Square prisoner has been released since President Clinton's visit.
Review all counterrevolutionary prison terms, about 2,000 of them;
total failure. Not one counterrevolutionary prison sentence has been
reviewed.
There has been no indication by Chinese authorities that they will
undertake a systematic review of such cases; according to Amnesty.
Allow religious freedom; continued strong repression, says Amnesty.
{time} 1215
There has been no indication of improvement since the President's
visit. On the gross violation of coercive family planning and the
harvesting of organs, again, Amnesty International reports no progress
whatsoever. Those are crimes against humanity.
The information concerning the practice of coercive population
control is ``unequivocal''. And the Chinese authorities have announced
no steps to stop it.
Review of the system and reeducation through labor; total failure
says Amnesty. Chinese authorities have made no changes in the system,
nor have they announced any plans to do so.
End police and prison brutality. Amnesty reports total failure in
these two areas as well. Chinese authorities continue to use torture
and beatings.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, General Chi did not respond to our
invitation. Nor has the ambassador. And we reissue it again to them.
Come and speak before the House, through our subcommittee or any other
forum, because we think that there is much to be held accountable for.
What really happened on Tiananmen Square? I think Ms. Pelosi put it
so well. There were people there on the ground who reported. Let us not
forget the very images we saw. It was captured on videotape. And yet,
they still lie right through their teeth.
Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, who was in the Square on
that night, reports, and this is his reporting, ``The troops began
shooting. Some people fell to the ground wounded or dead. Each time the
soldiers fired again and more people fell to the ground.''
When he went to the Xiehe Hospital, the nearest to the Square, ``It
was a bloody mess with hundreds of injured lying on the floors. I saw
bullet holes in the ambulances.''
Jan Wong of The Toronto Globe and Mail, looking down from a balcony
in Beijing, ``watched in horror as the army shot directly into the
crowds. People fell with gaping wounds.''
Later she reported, ``The soldiers strafed ambulances and shot
medical workers trying to rescue the wounded.'' ``In all,'' she
reported, ``I recorded eight long murderous volleys. Dozens died before
my eyes.''
General Chi said this was just pushing. What an outrageous big lie,
reminiscent of what the Nazis did during their terrible reign of
terror.
This is what Tiananmen Square means to the people of China, Mr.
Speaker, and to the world. We should mark the tenth anniversary of that
tragedy by remembering those who lost their lives in Tiananmen Square
and by publicly committing ourselves to the cause for which they died,
freedom for the people of China.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Congress is always at its best when we speak with a bipartisan
voice. There is no issue on which we speak with a stronger, clearer,
more articulate bipartisan voice than the issue of human rights
violations in China and in Tibet.
All of my colleagues who have spoken and all who will vote for this
resolution express our determination that we shall not rest until China
becomes a free and open and democratic society. The Chinese people
deserve no less, one of the most talented people with an incredible
record in science, literature, music, art, in every aspect of human
endeavor, who are suffering under the yoke of an unspeakable
totalitarian communistic dictatorship. The day of the Chinese people
will come.
I call on all my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, following the death of Mao and the end of
the chaotic Cultural Revolution in 1976, China embarked down the path
of significant economic and political reform, comparatively speaking.
With Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Policy, trade and foreign
investment expanded and rigid communist economic policies were relaxed.
As a result, the Chinese people were exposed to new standards of
living, access to information and commercial freedoms never before
realized. These progressive economic reforms stimulated the desire for
increased political freedom and democratization, especially among
students in China.
Unfortunately, while the Chinese Communist Party leadership
acknowledged that economic reform was necessary and encouraged it,
these leaders fearfully viewed even modest political liberalization as
a serious threat to the Communist Party's monopoly on power. Thus, when
Chinese students peacefully demonstrated for democratic change, hard-
line Communist leaders responded with tanks, bullets and mass arrests.
The most visible and brutal incidents occurred on June 3rd and 4th in
Tiananmen Square. Many people were killed by the People's Liberation
Army and other security forces. A great many more were wounded. It is
reported at over 20,000 people nationwide suspected of taking part in
the democracy movement were arrested and sentenced without trial to
prison or labor camps. Hundreds of these individuals remain
incarcerated today.
As the Chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific, this Member follows developments in China as
closely as possible and believes that it is certainly in America's
national security interests to integrate China into the international
community. Yet, it is clear that Sino-American relations are complex
and comprehensive, and have become increasingly problematic. Our
concerns continue to multiply in scope and seriousness: espionage,
illegal campaign contributions, weapons proliferation, abortion, Tibet,
Taiwan, unfair trade and human rights. Each of these issues needs to be
addressed by the appropriate means in the appropriate fora.
In some cases we will find ourselves in concert with the views or
policies of China. For example, we have a shared interest in supporting
a sustainable recovery from the Asian financial crisis. In other
matters, such as to what constitutes a respect and proper actions on
matters relating to human rights, we strongly disagree. Responsible
engagement does not equate to appeasement. It is a comprehensive
approach focusing on both areas of agreement and disagreement.
Freedom and democracy are the very foundation of the United States
and are principles the American people cherish. Americans were outraged
watching Chinese students whose only apparent crime was asking for more
political freedom being crushed by PLA tanks and shot in the back as
they tried to flee Tiananmen Square. Our consciences will not allow us
to quietly ignore this tragic misconduct of a government towards its
people. While Tiananmen Square may have been cleared of protesters ten
years ago, the aftermath of that violence remains.
Over the past decade since the tragic incident in Tiananmen Square,
the human rights situation in China gradually began to improve,
relatively speaking. Unfortunately, that encouraging progress was
reversed six months ago
[[Page 10813]]
when hundreds of prodemocracy activists, journalists, labor union
leaders, religious believers, and others labeled by the Communist Party
as dissidents began to be exiled, imprisoned or harassed.
Therefore, as part of our policy of responsible engagement, this
Member supports H. Res. 178, the resolution before the House concerning
the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989,
in the People's Republic of China. This is an appropriate and measured
way to send a message to the Communist leadership in Beijing and to the
Chinese people at large that Americans are understandably and as a
matter of principle and conscience very much concerned about human
rights and democratic reform in China.
If China is to be integrated and welcomed into the international
community as a responsible member and positive force, China ultimately
must respect the rule of law. H. Res. 178 serves as a strong reminder
that, in the opinion of the House of Representatives, very significant
actions still need to be taken by Beijing to achieve that standard.
Mr. Speaker, with the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre just a week away, this Member urges his colleagues to join him
in supporting H. Res. 178.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a group of
courageous individuals and their commitment to freedom and democracy--
the thousands of Chinese students and activists who took part in the
Tiananmen Square demonstration in May and June of 1989.
I want to thank the chairman of the Congressional Working Group on
China, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentle lady from
California (Ms. Pelosi) for bringing this resolution to the floor of
the House so quickly and in such a timely fashion.
Days after the June 4th massacre, the Congressional Human Rights
Caucus, held a briefing on this event. The pictures we saw, and the
stories we heard are some of the most disturbing pictures of brutality
and barbarity I have ever been exposed to.
And yet, ten years later the perpetrators of this massacre have not
been brought to justice. Hundreds of people are still held in prison
for their involvement. Thousands more have been jailed since for
similar reasons. Far too much time has passed for these cries of
democracy to go unheard.
The Chinese leadership remains unapologetic about the events of June
4, 1989, they continue to vilify, imprison and exile these and other
brave democracy activists. As recently as the beginning of this month,
Yang Tao, a student leader of Tiananmen Square, was picked up from his
house and arrested for calling on the government to ``re-evaluate'' its
position on the events of June 1989. Other leaders have been put under
house arrest for calling on the government to apologize for the murders
and compensate the victims' families. Radio Free Asia reports in the
days following the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, over half of the
callers to their talk show were critical of the Chinese Government.
The time has come for the Chinese government to take a close look at
what happened ten years ago and to apologize to its people. The
government cannot continue its harassment and imprisonment of its
citizens who exercise their rights of freedom of speech, expression and
religion. The hope and desire for democracy is still alive. We must do
all we can to support it. I stand in strong support of H. Res. 178.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today, I honor the hundreds, if not
thousands of Chinese students that were brutally slain on June 4, 1989,
by the Communist Chinese authorities. On that fateful day ten years
ago, the best and brighest of a generation perished needlessly and the
lives of countless Chinese families were disrupted forever.
I commend my colleague Nancy Pelosi for her continuing leadership on
China issues and for introducing H. Res. 178, to commemorate the Tenth
Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Her efforts insure that
the U.S. House of Representatives and the American people will never
forget.
To all the activists in China fighting today for the freedom of their
country, I vow never to forget Tiananmen Square. I remind you that your
allies across the globe continue to fight for your universal cause; to
attain freedom, democracy and human rights for the Chinese people.
The Chinese leaders say that they want to bring China into the modern
world economy. I say to the Chinese leaders, you can't have capitalism
without democracy and human rights. Capitalism and democracy go hand in
hand, you can't have one without the other.
The democratic rights advocated by these slain students ten years ago
are universal, not uniquely western values as the Chinese leadership
would have us believe. Indeed the blooming of full democracy in Taiwan,
Korea, South Africa, Eastern Europe, Russia and many other countries
since 1989 proves the universality of democracy and human rights.
Ultimately, the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
will prevail. As that document states, ``All human beings are born free
and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood.'' Until that day I will join Nancy Pelosi, many of my
colleagues here in the House, and countless others around the world in
fighting for this just cause.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I too yield back the balance of
my time, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 178.
The question was taken.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
JENNIFER'S LAW
(Mr. LAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to announce, this being
National Missing Children's Day, that an important piece of legislation
which will be known as Jennifer's Law, an effort to ensure that States
have the resources to create a database including DNA and fingerprints
and other important information through identified persons, that will
be matched with a missing persons list that is created through a
database throughout our Nation, that that important legislation will be
on the floor, will be available for suspension vote right after we
return from the Memorial Day recess.
I speak on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
majority leader, as the assistant majority leader today; and I speak on
behalf of a young lady from my district, 21-year-old Jennifer, who in
1993 moved from her parents' suburban home in New York to California.
She was in pursuit of her dream. Her mom was lonely for her and sent
her a ticket to come home, but she never picked up that ticket. She was
never seen again. And this is for Jennifer and for the many tens of
thousands of families that need to bring closure and peace of mind.
This important bill, Jennifer's Law, will help States and the Federal
Government partner together to do just that.
So I just wanted to announce to the House that that will be
introduced today, will be available, and will be brought to the floor
of this House as soon as we return from the Memorial Day recess.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1906, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 185 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 185
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1906) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the
bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII or
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill
[[Page 10814]]
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. The chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
House Resolution 185 is an open rule, providing for the consideration
of H.R. 1906, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal
Year 2000.
The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule 13, requiring a 3-day layover of
the committee report, and Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act,
prohibiting consideration of legislation within the Committee on the
Budget's jurisdiction, unless reported by the Committee on the Budget,
against consideration of the bill. Further, the rule waives clause 2 of
rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized and legislative provisions in an
appropriations bill, against provisions in the bill.
As has become standard practice since the 104th Congress, Mr.
Speaker, the rule provides Members who have preprinted their amendments
in the Record prior to their consideration priority in recognition to
offer their amendments.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone votes during
consideration of the bill and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a
postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
I would like to urge my colleagues to support this open rule on our
first appropriations measure to come to the floor in the 106th
Congress, Agriculture Appropriations.
I commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), for their hard work in producing this year's bill, which
provides significant assistance for agriculture. I know that spending
levels are extremely tight, and I believe they did a good job of
working within their limits.
The Agriculture Appropriations bill funds programs that help benefit
each of us every single day. From improving nutrition to helping ensure
safe and nutritious food to put on America's tables, the funds in this
bill make it possible for less than 2 percent of the American
population to provide food that is safe, nutritious, and affordable for
all 272 million people in the United States of America, as well as
others throughout the world.
I have consistently been an admirer and supporter of American
agriculture, and I commend the hard work and efficiency of the American
farmer. I am pleased to support both this open rule providing the means
to bring forth this legislation today and the underlying bill. I urge
my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me the time.
This is an open rule on the Agriculture Appropriations bill. As my
colleague has described, this rule provides for one hour to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule permits amendments under the 5-minute rule, which is the
normal amending process in the House. Members on both sides of the
aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments which are germane
and which follow the rules for appropriations bills.
The Agriculture Appropriations bill is one of the most important
measures that we consider. It funds programs that feed hungry people in
the United States and around the world. It supports the American
farmers, who are so important to the U.S. economy.
This bill represents a compromise. I wish that some of the funding
levels could be higher. However, I recognize that appropriators were
working under restraints and they faced many difficult decisions.
Overall, this is a worthwhile bill.
I appreciate the efforts of the Appropriations subcommittee chairman,
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and especially the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking minority member, in
crafting the bill. They did a good job. They had to work under
difficult constraints, but they did a very, very good job and funded
some very important programs.
The committee restored $50 million cut by the administration for
Title 2 of the P.L. 480 ``Food for Peace'' program. This program
donates crops grown by American farmers to hungry people in
impoverished and war-torn countries. This is the cornerstone of
America's humanitarian assistance around the world.
The bill provides $4 billion for the WIC program, which provides
nutrition to women, infants, and children. This is $81 million more
than the current level of funding but $100 million less than the
administration's request. According to the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, this level is not adequate to maintain the current
participation level of 7.4 million recipients.
Mr. Speaker, I note that once again the Committee on Rules has been
forced to waive the 3-day layover for committee reports. This rule
guarantees that all Members have at least 3 days to examine a bill
before the committee files a report with the House. By waiving this
rule, the House risks that some Members will not have enough time to
study a bill before it is considered on the House floor.
This is the 13th time this year the Committee on Rules had to waive
this rule. But it is an important bill and we need to act quickly, so I
will support the rule and the bill. I think it is vital, important, and
we need it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
{time} 1230
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about
where we are going in this country. This rule is symptomatic of the
problem that we face. There are two Members of the House who honestly
agreed that we would not be able to live within the 1997 budget
agreement with the President. Those two Members voted for a budget that
would actually spend Social Security money. Everybody else that is a
Member of this House voted for one budget or another that would
preserve 100 percent of the Social Security surplus this year. This
bill is the first among many bills that will do exactly the opposite of
that. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies states
that this bill is a cut. That is an untruthful statement. This
[[Page 10815]]
bill actually increases spending around $250 million. That money will
come from the Social Security surplus.
There will be those today in the debate on this bill that will deny
that. They will say there is no way you can know that this money will
be coming from Social Security because we have not considered the other
bills. To me that is intellectually dishonest, because we realize that
this is the first bill of 13 appropriations bills under which we will
consider over the next several months. We have said with the budget
that passed this House that we would preserve 100 percent of the Social
Security surplus. My question to my colleagues is if we really do not
intend to do that, it is time for us to be very, very honest with the
American people. I put my colleagues on notice that I will vote for no
appropriations bill and no rule that is intended to spend the first
penny of Social Security surplus. The issue really is not Social
Security. The issue really is are we going to regenerate faith of the
American people in this body? We cannot in good conscience for our
country, for our children and for our grandchildren do anything but be
fully honest about what our intentions are.
On my side of the aisle, there is a great debate on how best to
accomplish this. We are faced with an ag appropriations bill because of
process time. We must get a bill to the floor. We must start passing
appropriations bills. Consequently, we are going to put forth a bill
today and a rule. There is no question in my mind it will pass. There
is no question in my mind that this bill also will probably pass. But
if it does in its present form, $250 million above last year, then what
we are saying to the American people is we do not really mean what we
say when we passed both a Democrat budget, which did not pass but when
we voted on it, or the Republican budget which did pass and we voted
on, that we really do not mean what we say about protecting Social
Security money. That lies at the heart of the problems of our body. For
America to thrive, for America to turn around from the tragedies that
are facing us today, the same principles have to be beheld in this
body, and that is a principle of truth.
If in fact this body intends to protect Social Security, if it
intends to do that, if we are true with our votes about what we meant
on the various budgets, then there is no way this rule should pass and
there is no way if this rule passes that this bill should pass.
I come from an agricultural district. My district is farmers. It is
rural. Everything in my district has lots to do with the appropriations
coming from the Agricultural Department. But we can do better. We must
do better. Because it is not about spending Social Security money. It
is not about being true to our word. It is about the foundational
structure of our country and whether or not we are going to operate on
the principles that we want our children to have, that we are going to
reinforce the positive aspects of honor, of commitment to your word.
Are we going to set an example for our children in high school that we
are going to do what we said we were going to do? Are we going to be
true to the founding principles of this country?
I am in my last term, and I must say that I am very much discouraged
as a Member of this body whether or not we have a great future when in
fact we say one thing and mean another. I hope that you will check your
heart, not just your mind, especially not your political mind, but that
you will check your heart. Do we really mean it when we say we are
going to protect Social Security, or do we not? I believe we do not
mean it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in strong support of this rule, and I congratulate the
chairman and the ranking member for their work. I think there are a lot
of very positive aspects to this bill.
I wanted to highlight, though, at this moment two amendments that I
will be offering with support from different members from both
political parties. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that in the
United States of America today, at a time when we are far and away the
wealthiest country in the history of the world, hunger, h-u-n-g-e-r,
remains a very serious problem for senior citizens and for children in
this Nation. At a time when this Nation possesses so much wealth, there
is absolutely no excuse, none at all, that one American citizen is
hungry. And yet hospital administrators tell us that many of the senior
citizens who come into their hospitals are suffering, if you can
believe this, from malnutrition. Malnutrition. That is not what should
be going on in the United States. I along with Democrats and
Republicans will be offering an amendment to increase by $10 million
funding for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program which comes
close, therefore, to the level that the President had requested. This
amendment will be offset by cutting the Agricultural Research Service
which received a $50 million increase this year, bringing it up to $830
million. So they received a $50 million increase up to $830 million
when we have large numbers of senior citizens in this country going
hungry. And while agriculture research is important and there is much
in that bill that is important, we should not be increasing funds to
develop red snapper aquaculture when senior citizens and children in
America are going hungry.
The second amendment that I will be introducing will be a very small
amount of money which would go to help develop agritourism in the
United States. It is no secret that all over this country, family
farmers, whether it is dairy, whether it is in other commodities, are
fighting for their lives, and there are States such as New Mexico and
Massachusetts with an agritourism program, a program by which tourists
could come visit family farms, perhaps to bed-and-breakfast or other
types of activities and get cash into the pockets of family farms who
are struggling. There are some very good programs all over this country
that have been established in New Mexico, established in Massachusetts.
I think it is important for a small sum of money to be appropriated at
the Federal level to allow innovative programs to be developed
throughout this country. I would hope that for those of us who are
concerned about preserving the family farm, we support that amendment
as well.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would simply request support for this rule. It is an open rule. Any
concerns or opposition that Members may have with regard to the
underlying legislation can be dealt with through amendments. If there
are colleagues who believe there is too much spending, they can propose
amendments to cut spending. All of that is permitted under a totally
open rule. And so I would ask all of my colleagues to support this rule
so that the process can go on and so precisely debate on the
legislation, including any disagreements, may also go on and take place
in this House today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The Chair announces that proceedings will resume immediately
following this first 15-minute vote on the three postponed suspension
motions and that each of those will be 5-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402,
nays 10, not voting 21, as follows:
[[Page 10816]]
[Roll No. 147]
YEAS--402
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
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
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
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
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 (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
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
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--10
Bishop
Coburn
Edwards
Hilliard
Hostettler
McIntosh
McKinney
Miller, George
Sanford
Wu
NOT VOTING--21
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Cox
Ewing
Graham
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Kasich
Lucas (KY)
Millender-McDonald
Napolitano
Ortiz
Packard
Peterson (MN)
Reyes
Smith (TX)
Waxman
Whitfield
Young (AK)
{time} 1301
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to clause 8, rule
XX, the Chair will now put the question on each motion to suspend the
rules on which further proceedings were postponed earlier today in the
order in which that motion was entertained.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
S. 249, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 1833, by the yeas and nays; and
House Resolution 178, by the yeas and nays.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for each vote in this
series.
____________________
MISSING, EXPLOITED, AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN PROTECTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 249, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 241, as amended, on which the yeas and
nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414,
nays 1, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 148]
YEAS--414
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
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 (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
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
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
[[Page 10817]]
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
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
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
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
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--18
Bachus
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Davis (FL)
Ewing
Graham
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Millender-
McDonald
Napolitano
Ortiz
Reyes
Smith (TX)
Waxman
{time} 1310
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
TRADE AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS, DRUG-FREE BORDERS, AND PREVENTION OF ON-
LINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1833, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1833, as amended, on which the yeas and nays
are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 410,
nays 2, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 149]
YEAS--410
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
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
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
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
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)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
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
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
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
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
McHugh
Paul
NOT VOTING--21
Bereuter
Bilbray
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Ewing
Gekas
Graham
Herger
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Lucas (OK)
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Napolitano
Ortiz
Reyes
Sherwood
Smith (TX)
Woolsey
{time} 1320
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
[[Page 10818]]
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 147, 148, and 149, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``Yes'' on each vote.
____________________
CONCERNING TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF TIANANMEN SQUARE MASSACRE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The pending business is the
question of suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H.
Res. 178.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 178, 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 418,
nays 0, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 150]
YEAS--418
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
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
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
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
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
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
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
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
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)
NOT VOTING--15
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Ewing
Gekas
Graham
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Ortiz
Reyes
Smith (TX)
{time} 1329
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I
offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 188) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 188
Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are
hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the
House of Representatives:
Committee on Small Business: Ms. Berkley of Nevada; Mr.
Udall of Colorado
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM HON. RICHARD A. GEPHARDT, DEMOCRATIC LEADER
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) laid before the House the
following communication from the Honorable Richard A. Gephardt,
Democratic leader:
House of Representatives,
Office of the Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC, May 25, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Title 44 of the U.S.C. 2702,
I hereby appoint the following individual to the Advisory
Committee on The Records of Congress:
Dr. Joseph Cooper of Baltimore, MD.
Yours Very Truly,
Richard A. Gephardt.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and that I may include tabular and extraneous materials on the bill
(H.R. 1906) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[[Page 10819]]
____________________
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 185 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1906.
{time} 1333
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1906) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I have the honor to present to the House the
fiscal year 2000 bill appropriating funds for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. The
bill we are taking up today has a total discretionary budget authority
of almost $13.99 billion. This is $296 million above the current level
and $531 million below the request.
In mandatory spending, this bill has $47 billion for fiscal year
2000, about $4.8 billion over current levels and $890 million below the
request. Almost two-thirds of the mandatory spending in this bill is
for food stamps, child nutrition, and most of the rest goes to support
basic farm programs. This bill is within the allocations required by
the Committee on Appropriations.
This bill is truly a bipartisan product, Mr. Chairman, constructed
from hearings that began on February 10 and ended on March 18. The
Committee on Appropriations has produced seven volumes of hearing
records containing thousands of pages of information on the hearings,
the detailed budget requests, and the answers to questions asked by
Members and the public as well.
The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies and the Committee on
Appropriations held markups on May 13 and May 19 respectively, and
these were public meetings with which the Members participated actively
in shaping the bill.
Many Members would like to spend more than is in the bill, and so
would I. We have about 250 letters to date, many of them with multiple
requests, but only a handful ask for reduced spending.
Once again this year the administration proposed to pay for requested
increases, more than $780 million, with user fees that require
legislation. Once again the administration has favored budget gimmicks
over reality because the main component of this legislation, user fees
on meat and poultry inspection, has been strongly opposed by consumer
groups, industry, and the authorizing committee for several years.
This bill does a lot of good in many areas. Farm Service Agency
salaries and expenses are increased by $80 million to improve delivery
of farm programs; agricultural credit programs are increased by more
than $700 million; and funds to protect our Nation's soils are
increased by $13 million. Rural housing programs are increased over
last year's level and rural telephone and electric loans are increased
or held at last year's levels.
Once again, the Food Safety and Inspection Service gets the full
request, a $36 million increase. FDA has an increase of $115 million.
Funding for the Food Safety Initiative is provided throughout the bill.
Child nutrition programs have been increased by $370 million and WIC
by $81 million. P.L. 480, Titles I and II, the two main food aid
titles, are restored to last year's levels, and the full request is
provided for the Foreign Agricultural Service.
I would also like to say to my colleagues that the bill so far does
not have any significant provisions that would bring objections from
authorizing committees, and I would strongly urge that we keep it that
way.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), our even more distinguished ranking member on
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, for their help in putting this
bill together.
I would also like to recognize the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Emerson), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), our
new subcommittee members who have brought a great deal of enthusiasm
and creativity to this bill. I look forward to their participation on
the floor today and in the conference.
Mr. Chairman, I say to all my colleagues that this is a bill that
will benefit every one of our constituents every day of their lives, no
matter where they live in this great country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to acknowledge the hard work of the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies, members of our subcommittee, as well as the staff for
their leadership, including our new staff director, Hank Moore, who has
worked so hard this year.
This bill makes a reasonable effort to apportion the limited
resources available to our subcommittee to keep our Nation at the
leading edge for food, fiber, new fuels, and forest production, as well
as the counts relating to research, trade and food safety.
May I begin by reminding my colleagues that food is not produced at
the local grocery store. There is no question that agriculture and food
processing are America's leading industries. Our farmers and our
agricultural sector remain the most productive on the face of the
Earth. They well understand, as we do, how difficult it is to maintain
our Nation's commitment to excellence in agriculture in tight budgetary
times.
While on balance this bill seems like a reasonable effort to stretch
a limited sum of money as far as possible, and I would encourage my
colleagues to vote for this bill, we simply disagree on the levels of
support needed for priority programs, including the Women, Infants and
Children feeding program; the Natural Resource Conservation Service,
the primary conservation operation in this country; and other programs
like farmland protection which were not able to be funded at all in
this bill, nor was the school breakfast pilot program that the
administration requested.
We must also keep in mind that this bill simply does not do enough to
address the Depression-level conditions affecting many sectors of rural
America from coast to coast, whether we are talking about the Salinas
Valley, cattle country in Florida, hog producing country in the
Midwest, cotton fields in Texas, the list goes on and on.
This bill simply is an exceedingly limited response to an extremely
serious situation afflicting many sectors of the farm economy across
our Nation. As we consider this bill today, I would urge my colleagues
to think about what is going on in rural America, as farmers continue
to experience significant decreases in commodity prices. It started
with wheat and with cattle, and it spread to the feed grains, to oil
seeds, to cotton, to pork, and even now the dairy sectors.
At the same time, the costs of production are not decreasing. In
fact, they are increasing. Total farm debt has risen now to over $170
billion at the
[[Page 10820]]
end of last year, up nearly 9 percent over the last 2 years.
That means people are borrowing against their accumulated equity to
make up for their lack of ability to receive a price for their product
in the market. In fact, farmland values began declining in 1998, not a
good sign.
We know that USDA, the Department of Agriculture predicts the
greatest strain this year will be on field crops. We know that wheat,
corn, soybean, upland cotton, and rice crops experienced about a 17
percent drop last year; and they project that this year, 27 percent,
there will be a 27 percent drop in prices from prior year averages.
So we have a real tender situation here, which frankly this bill does
not address. This bill puts blinders onto what is happening in rural
America and basically says, well, we really do not have the money, so
let us just continue like it was in years past, which will not solve
the real situation out there.
Overall, this bill does a number of useful things, but it can hardly
be considered adequate. It is moving in the right direction but falls
far short of the mark. All I can say is that our Nation has a
responsibility beyond this bill to help a sector of our economy so
vital to our national security.
What is really happening in our country, as more bankruptcies occur
in rural America, is the average age of farmers has now risen to 55.
People are making live decisions out there about whether or not they
are going to hold on to the farm or sell it off for another suburban
development. This is not a good sign for America in the 21st Century.
People really should not be selling off their seed corn for the future.
Let me just mention that in the discretionary appropriations, which
in this bill total $13.9 billion for the next fiscal year, if we just
take a look at the Farm Credit and the Farm Service Agency people, the
people doing the work, administering the programs in our Farm Service
Agency offices, and the loans and so forth that are being made, there
is an increase of less than one-fifth of 1 percent over the prior year.
If we really take a look at what it is taking to hold agricultural
America together today in this severely depressed economy in the rural
countryside, we will find that the amounts in this bill are one-third
below what was spent during this fiscal year and the last fiscal year
as we attempted to prop up the disasters going on out there with the
emergency bills that we were forced to pass outside the regular budget
process.
So this a very lean bill that truly will not meet the needs of rural
America. We may be forced again into one of these extra budgetary
sessions to try to figure out how we are going to prop up rural America
in the months ahead.
Let me also mention that the bill does try to meet the
administration's request for the Food and Drug Administration to
process additional drug approvals and to increase the safety of our
food supply, with all the additional imports that are coming in here as
well as pathogens found in food.
We increased funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, very
important to the health of the American people, and to some rural
housing and rural development accounts, as well as for agricultural
research and pest and disease control through the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service as well as the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
But, more importantly, on the minus side there is no provision in
this bill for any of the emergency assistance provided to rural America
during this fiscal year. We do not continue any support for market
support, nor any of the subsidies for the crop insurance premiums or
the extra funds we provided to the Secretary of Agriculture to lift
surplus commodities off the marketplace to try to get prices to rise in
this country.
So the situation facing our farmers in this bill is that, well, we
really do not take care of them. We sort of continue things the way
they were, and we may be forced to come back later in the year in order
to deal with the hemorrhage that is occurring across this country.
Let me also mention that in this bill we will probably be forced to
reduce county office staff by another 650 staff positions. I think this
is truly tragic, because we have got backlogs around the country of
farmers waiting to receive payments after months and months because of
disasters that have occurred from coast to coast.
{time} 1345
So reducing these staffing levels really does not make much sense,
and yet it is the truth that is buried inside this bill.
Further, the bill reduces funding for food aid programs, which are so
important to support people around the world who live at the edge of
hunger, but also to aid rural America. In fact, we lift surplus during
this year that was sent to Russia; we have tried to assist the Kosovo
refugees in the emergency supplemental that just passed, but there is
nothing in this bill that continues that kind of additional surplus
purchase. In fact, it will be reduced.
So the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and our subcommittee
have certainly tried to do what was best under the hand that we were
dealt, but the bill falls far short of what is needed to address the
urgent problems facing farmers across America.
One thing is certain, no matter what forum or legislative vehicle is
chosen, it is essential that Congress act today at least to move this
bill forward and to move the first appropriation bill through this
session of Congress. We are now approaching Memorial Day.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for the hard
work he has done in putting together this piece of legislation before
us today.
Given the tight budget constraints that we face, the chairman has had
to make difficult decisions and balance a lot of different needs. He
knows, and I think all our subcommittee members know, that this bill
will not, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, address all
of the many urgent needs that are there out on the farm right now.
Funds are desperately needed for farm programs because of the low
prices and tough market conditions for farmers and ranchers all over
the country.
However, I think the gentleman from New Mexico has worked with the
numbers that he was given and done a tremendous job and the best job
possible to meet the many needs of farmers and ranchers, and I just
want to thank him for the outstanding job he has done.
Let me just take a minute too to highlight some of the aspects of
this bill that are critically important to agriculture. Total dollars
for agriculture research are up by $61 million. The bill rejects the
cuts in Hatch Act and extension research funding that were proposed by
the administration. Export programs, such as P.L. 480, Titles I and II,
are funded at or near last year's levels, again rejecting large cuts by
the administration.
Many farm State Members of Congress have expressed a concern, as I
have, about increased concentration in agriculture markets, and I am
pleased this bill includes a $636,000 increase for packer competition
and industry concentration, as well as $750,000 strictly for poultry
compliance activities. There is much needed oversight and enforcement
money to ensure our beef, pork and poultry producers are treated
fairly.
Now, I personally believe that we should do more and have mandatory
price reporting for livestock, but this is a function of the
authorizing committee, not the Committee on Appropriations, and I will
look forward to working with my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) on
this legislation later on this year.
Our bill also increases farm loan accounts, such as farm ownership,
farm operating, and emergency loans from $2.3 billion to $3 billion.
Not enough,
[[Page 10821]]
and we will probably need more later, but because there is an
increasing demand for these loans due to the hardships in the farm
economy, we need the money now and, as I said, we will need more later.
For soybean producers in Missouri and around the country there is
continued funding needed to fight the cyst nematode pest. Continued
research will help develop soybean varieties that are resistant to the
yield and profit endangering pest.
I would simply add this is an extremely tough time for our farmers
and ranchers. As the gentlewoman from Ohio noted, this is an issue of
national security. My farmers tell me that it is as bad as it has been
in decades. Not years ago, but decades. And while this bill does not
address all of the problems in the farm economy, particularly as it
relates to the staffing in the Farm Services Agency and the National
Resource Conservation Service, it is a positive step in the right
direction and I would urge a strong ``yes'' on the bill.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, today I am disappointed and I am outraged.
I am almost at a loss for words.
I am angry because this bill does not include the school breakfast
pilot program. The school breakfast pilot program tests the benefits of
making breakfast available at school to all children in early grades.
It was authorized in the William F. Goodling Nutrition Reauthorization
Act, and it is included in the President's budget.
As this Nation searches for ways to make our schools safer, surely,
surely we want to consider all reasonable ways to improve students'
behavior. Well, two studies have already shown that kids who eat
breakfast improve both their grades and their behavior at school. So
why are some of my colleagues opposed to an official study to evaluate
what happens in a school when all the students start the day with a
good breakfast?
I plan to fight this and I plan to keep working with the committee,
but I want to talk about the whys on this. The answer may be because we
already know that school breakfast should be offered by schools as a
learning tool, just like a book, just like a computer. It may be that
some of my colleagues are too concerned with keeping our schools just
the way they have always been, so they fight against any proposals for
change. Or it may be that children just do not count enough.
Mr. Chairman, as this Nation, as this body searches for ways to make
our schools safer and better for our children, surely we want to
consider all reasonable ways to improve students' behavior. The school
breakfast program would help us with that, so I will continue to fight,
I will continue to work with my colleagues in support of the school
breakfast program on the appropriations committee.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for
fighting so hard for this school breakfast program and to say that with
her leadership the members of the subcommittee and the full committee
have attempted to do what was necessary.
Unfortunately, the administration did not provide us with some of the
information that we were expecting. The gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) worked with us at the subcommittee and full committee
levels, and it is our firm intention to try to take this issue into
conference to see if we cannot do something to move this pilot project
forward.
But I just want to say to the gentlewoman that without her interest
and research and the deep dedication that she has shown, we would not
be this far. I know we are not where the gentlewoman wants us to be
yet, but without her leadership we would not be anywhere. We hope that
as we move towards conference we might be able to accommodate some of
this.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the agriculture
appropriations bill. I serve on the subcommittee and can say on a
firsthand basis that the staff, on a bipartisan basis, went through
this legislation thoroughly to be sure that we have balanced the needs
of the American farm, agricultural community, and the American grocery
consuming public.
Last year's bill was $61.7 billion. This year the legislation is down
to $60.8 billion. A lot of this goes back, Mr. Chairman, to the 1997
bipartisan budget agreement, which was pushed by Democrat and
Republican leaders alike with the full support of the President. And to
get back to that budget agreement, it had some good and it had some
bad, as my colleagues can imagine in any huge piece of legislation
which Democrats and Republicans come together on.
Now, unfortunately, we are seeing from both sides of the aisle people
who are peeling away from the agreement, people who voted for the
budget agreement that are now lamenting the fact that it actually does
call for some belt tightening here and there and they are beginning to
walk away from it.
But the staff on this subcommittee, and again on a bipartisan basis,
tried to put together the actual requests of 280 Members asking for
specific projects in their districts or of national scope. And it was
quite a balancing act, because we do have a certain amount of
institutional schizophrenia. We have, on one hand, people who say I
want to cut the budget and I want it cut now, but oh, no, not in my
district, not in the district that I happen to represent. And, by the
way, I want to fund this particular project, which of course is not
pork, it is just that it is economic development when it is in my
district. So this bill, like all appropriation bills, is a balancing
act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the American farmer is facing probably
unprecedented challenges. They have challenges getting credit.
Businesses in America, small businesses to Fortune 500 companies, have
to have credit. They have to borrow both short- and long-term money.
Yet for farmers, they cannot get long-term money any more. Banks, and
rightfully so, facing the realities of making a profit on the farm,
they will not lend them money any more. So the farmers are scrambling,
and that is one of the huge challenges that is facing farmers today.
A second challenge is international competition. I represent Milen,
Georgia, little Jenkins County, Georgia, and farmers there can grow
oats and do it very inexpensively and very efficiently. And yet at the
end of the season, they can still go down to Brunswick, Georgia, and
buy imported oats cheaper than they can grow it in America. And that is
just one commodity.
That is the story with so many of our imports now. And one reason is
that our foreign competitors are heavily, heavily subsidized in
comparison to the American farmers, where we have about $3.9 billion of
this $60 billion bill that is spent on actual commodity-type programs.
People say, oh, let us cut out the farm ``subsidies'', yet most of
these are not true subsidies. But even so, it is impossible to compete
against foreign competitors, even with the modern technology and all
the farming techniques we know.
A third challenge that our farmers are facing is that simply of the
weather. We do not get the rain that we need in every growing season.
Last year Screven County, Georgia, town seat of Sylvania, lost $17
million because of the drought; $17 million in farm losses. Now, that
is not much for a big country like America, but tell that to somebody
in Sylvania, Georgia, and tell that to a third generation farmer who is
going to lose his farm because of that drought.
Unfortunately, in Georgia this year, we are facing possibly another
bad season because of the lack of rain. We need to help our farmers on
all these challenges, Mr. Chairman, and this bill tries to do that. It
is not going to do it all the way. It will not do it as well as we
would like, but it takes a step in the right direction.
[[Page 10822]]
There are a lot of things in this bill, though. There is some money
for water projects, there is money for conservation projects. One thing
not in the bill, that I want to try to work with the minority and the
majority representatives on, is giving some tax credit for precision
agriculture. Because if we can move our farmers towards obtaining
precision agriculture equipment, then they would know exactly how much
fertilizer to apply, exactly how much water to use, and exactly what
their profits are per acre so that they can make Ag production as
absolutely efficient as possible.
I would also like to see more tax credits for farmers in other areas.
I would like to see them taxed more on the use of their land rather
than on the potential use of their land. I represent Coastal Georgia,
it is a huge growth area. Bulloch County last year, 17 percent;
Effingham County, 42 percent; Bryan County, 52 percent. All these are
traditionally agricultural counties and now they are becoming urban or
suburban counties. There are few family farms left, but they are being
taxed out of existence.
{time} 1400
I would like to see some tax help for farmers in that direction. I
would like to see land taxed on its actual use and not its percentage
use. And I of course, Mr. Chairman, would love to see some estate tax
or death tax relief so that family farms can be passed from one
generation or the other.
This is not going to happen in this bill but this bill takes us in
the right direction. Right now, Mr. Chairman, less than 2 percent of
the American population is feeding 100 percent of the American
population and a substantial portion of the world. Does our ag policy
work? I would say yes, it does. Americans spend about 11 cents on the
dollar earned on food and groceries. We spend more than that on
entertainment, jet skis, CDs, movies, vacations. We are spending more
on recreation than we do on food and groceries.
So the ag policy is working. It has a lot of good potential in it for
improvements. We are going to continue to work on that on a bipartisan
basis. I urge my Members to support the bill.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), a distinguished member of the subcommittee who has
put in long hours on this bill.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of our
subcommittee, for the care and craftsmanship with which he worked to
put this bill together. It has been a pleasure to work with him as a
member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture.
Unfortunately, the constraints within which we have had to operate,
constraints imposed by the leadership here in the Congress and
traceable directly back to the agriculture bill of 1996, the so-called
Freedom to Farm bill, have made it impossible to put together an
agriculture appropriations bill here that meets the needs of the
agriculture community, the needs of our farmers and the needs of our
consumers across the country.
As I said, this is directly attributable to the constraints that flow
from the so-called Freedom to Farm bill, which is not in fact a Freedom
to Farm bill, but in many cases it has been a freedom to fail bill,
almost a guarantee of failure. Farm prices in the farm belts all across
our country are at near-Depression prices. Farmers are finding
themselves in situations that verge on the desperate and in many cases
they are in fact desperate. Farmers are being forced out of business
because they cannot sell their crops at a price that is higher than the
cost that they had to incur for putting those crops in the ground. It
is an absolutely impossible situation.
We cannot have an agriculture that is sustained in a global economy
where other countries are subsidizing their agriculture and making
certain creating circumstances within which agricultural people are
going to prosper. We have failed to do that. In fact, we have taken all
the safeguards that our agricultural community has had away from them.
We did so in that Freedom to Farm bill in 1996. We need to go back and
correct those mistakes, and we need to do so soon. The longer we wait,
the more desperate the circumstances will become.
Are we committed to family farms, or do we want farms that are
corporate in nature exclusively across this country? Do we want farmers
to make a living, or do we want it all to be processors? Do we want to
have an agricultural community that is healthy and strong and providing
the food and fiber that our people need domestically here to sustain
their lives?
These are the basic questions that are before us. And, unfortunately,
this bill, not through any fault of the chairman or members of the
subcommittee, but only because of the constraints imposed upon the
subcommittee and constraints in the Freedom to Farm bill have made it
impossible to meet these needs this year. We need to go back and meet
them and we need to do so soon, intelligently, and thoroughly.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would wish to engage in a colloquy with my
good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. SKEEN, I appreciate your willingness to discuss the Department of
Agriculture Plant Protection Center located in Niles, Michigan. I know
that you share my belief that this center has a very important mission,
finding natural means to combat pests. The role of this facility among
plant protection centers is important to American agriculture and is of
enormous value to the agriculture industry throughout the Midwest.
The work the employees do in Niles is particularly important in light
of the probable loss of pesticides as a result of the implementation of
the Food Quality Protection Act. In fact, just this past year the
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Michigan State University have
formed partnerships with the laboratory at Niles aimed at promoting
biological control options. This is a prime example of partnering and
cost-sharing between State and Federal agriculture interests using the
best strengths of both partners to benefit agriculture.
I am greatly troubled that within the past 2 years the budget of this
facility has been cut by 26 percent, the staff reduced from 45 to 19
employees. Especially troubling is the fact that this facility receives
its funding through the biocontrol line item, which tends to receive
increased funding and is scheduled to get a 22 percent increase in
fiscal year 2000. I firmly believe that any further reductions in the
budget at this Niles facility would be a serious error and would
jeopardize the strength of agriculture throughout the Midwest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) for a response.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern for the
future of the critical work that is being done at the Niles Protection
Center.
As I understand it, the USDA has not made a final decision. And, of
course, we have a long way to go before we produce a conference report
with a final number for APHIS. We have provided the account in question
with a significant increase for fiscal year 2000 at a time of a very
tight budget, and I hope the USDA will take note of our efforts and our
concerns for the Niles facility.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his efforts, and I promise to
continue working with him in conference on this matter.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the chairman of our
subcommittee, and to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) that we so
much support the efforts that he is making for this Niles Center, also
on behalf of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). We have that
special situation where Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio all meet. And the
services provided through the Center serve the entire country
certainly, especially the Midwest. And I want to compliment the
[[Page 10823]]
gentleman for drawing our attention to it and placing it in the debate
today.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Salinas Valley, California (Mr. Farr), another member of our
committee who represents the area that really feeds America, a hard
working and dedicated member of our subcommittee.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
I rise as a new member of the Committee on Appropriations and of the
Subcommittee of Agriculture, first of all to tell them how much I
appreciated the leadership that was given in this markup by the
chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and also by our
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
I represent a productive part of our country. We produce about 84
crops, which no other State in the United States produces that many as
are produced in my district, about $2.5 billion in agricultural sales.
And most of it does not receive any help from the Federal Government.
But they are interested in research and they are interested in sort of
cutting-edge issues.
I would just like to point out, for those that are interested in
these budgetary issues, that this markup is about a 1.8 percent
increase over last year's discretionary money. Now, remember, last year
we had a lot of agricultural debate on the floor because we were
putting money into supplementals, into emergency aid. If we take the
total amount that was spent last year on agriculture and we look at the
amount that was spent this year, we are $6.4 billion below what
Congress spent last year, or about a 31 percent cut. So this is a very,
very, very tight budget.
And I might add, as tight as it is, it still ranks number four of all
the appropriation committees in the amount of spending it does. Why?
Because in America we created the Department of Agriculture when
President Lincoln was here, and he indicated that we needed a
department that essentially had a little bit for everybody in America,
kind of a consumers department.
So the department has all the rural America issues, which are as true
today as they were a hundred years ago. Rural America always needs more
help. We have all the commodities programs. We have all the foreign
sales programs, whether we are going to have commodities abroad. And I
know there will be Members up here attacking the fact we put taxpayers'
money into foreign sales.
But my colleagues, wake up and smell the coffee. Every day we have
Juan Valdez telling us to drink Colombian coffee, and we do. Why?
Because that country puts money in advertising in America and Americans
buy it. So we do a little quid pro quo in the same way. We take money
here and we take products and try to get them to sell abroad. Why?
Because we export four times more than we import. Our balance of trade
is in the plus in agriculture. We produce more agriculture in America
than Americans can consume, so we need to export it, and people want
it. And we ought to be proud of it, because it is a labor-intensive
industry that is the heart of our country, and it has been the number
one production in America historically and today more than ever.
So, with this tough budget that we have adopted, we also left many
programs on the table, the conservation program, farm land protection.
There is no money in here. We have got to get that before this is over.
Also left on the table, we cut wetlands reserves. We left on the table
environmental quality initiatives. We left on the table, more
importantly, about $120 million to fully fund all the nutritional
programs we need in America.
This is a very tight appropriation, too tight for many people and not
tight enough for others. But I do not think we will ever find an
appropriation that has had more bipartisan support than this one does,
and I think that is attributable to both the leadership on the other
side of the aisle and on our own side.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say from the outset, I come from
a farm district of rural northeastern Oklahoma that has a great deal of
farmers. And I believe, overall, that the appropriators have done a
good job on this bill. But they have not done good enough.
We passed two supplemental emergency bills for farmers in this last
Congress, almost $12 billion, and I am not objecting to the fact that
we did that. What I am objecting to is the fact that that money was
paid for out of Social Security receipts. There is no question about
it. And what I want to focus on is, where is the money going to come
for the increase in this year over the true baseline last year? It is
going to come from Social Security.
I want to spend a minute just showing everybody the kind of problems
we have. Most young people under 35 believe in UFOs before they believe
they are going to get their Social Security money. And do my colleagues
know what? They are probably right. This is the Social Security 1999
Trust Report. And what we see in black is the amount of money that is
coming into the government in excess of what is being paid out, and my
colleagues will note as of 2014 that starts to turn red.
Last year we spent approximately $29 billion of that money. The
Congress appropriated $29 billion of excess Social Security money for
appropriation bills. Twenty-nine billion was taken out of the money
that was coming in supposedly dedicated for Social Security.
The other thing that I would like to discuss is we do not have a real
surplus. What we have is a Washington surplus, because if we exclude
Social Security money, last year we ran a $29 billion deficit. The debt
to our children and our grandchildren is rising at the rate, as we
speak, of $275 million a day. So it is not about whether we should do
the right things for our farmers. We should, and probably we should
spend more money on our farmers than what we are spending. The question
is, how do we spend that money?
If we look at what is about to happen this year, the surplus for the
year 2000, as estimated by the Social Security Administration, is $141
billion. Based on the plans that we see, it is a conservative estimate
that $45 billion of that will be spent. That is Social Security money
that people are working every day putting into that, with the trust to
think that that money is going to be there for them when they retire.
And that does not come close to addressing the issue, can they live on
their Social Security payment now?
In my practice in Muskogee, Oklahoma, when I see seniors, I have
seniors who are totally dependent on Social Security. And do my
colleagues know what they do? They do not buy their medicine because
they do not have enough money. They buy food before they buy medicine.
{time} 1415
So not only do we have a problem in taking the money that is supposed
to be for Social Security, the benefit that we have out there in many
instances is not enough for our seniors to live on, let alone live
healthily on.
Finally, the point I would make is that we have 102,000 Agricultural
Department employees. We have another 87,000 contract employees for the
Department of Agriculture. That comes to 189,000 employees in the
United States. If we take 260 million people, it is pretty quick you
can come up, for every 1,500 people in the United States, we have at
least one Agricultural Department employee. Do we need all those
employees? What we have said is we cannot cut the number of employees
in the Agriculture Department, we cannot have less employees, and we
cannot get more money directly to the farmer, because we are chewing up
a vast majority of the money trying to give them the money. It is not
about not taking care of our farmers. If we expect to protect Social
Security money, which on both sides of the aisle, save two Members of
this body, voted for budgets that said they would protect 100 percent
of Social Security, then we have to bring this bill back to the level
of spending last year. What that requires is about $260 million worth
of
[[Page 10824]]
trimming amendments to be able to do that. I propose to offer
offsetting amendments that will bring us down to last year's level.
When we are at that level, then I will stop offering amendments. Until
we get to that level, I plan on continuing to offer amendments. This is
not done in any precocious fashion. My intention is to help us all do
what we all voted, save two Members, to do, and, that is, to preserve
Social Security. The best way I know of doing that is the first
appropriation bill, to make a first start on that.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the reason we have a 1-year appropriations bill is so
that the Congress can look at the spending each year and adjust
accordingly as the Constitution requires. We do not rubber stamp the
administration's request and we do not automatically approve last
year's level of spending. This bill has a modest increase in spending
over fiscal year 1999, and it is about 30 percent of the increase
requested by the administration. I have heard several hundred requests
for more spending by my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats.
Frankly this bill does not come near to paying for all those requests.
But we did the best we could and I certainly hope that no one who wrote
us asking for spending will support this amendment.
In this bill, there is additional money for food safety, for
conservation, for rural housing and for a lot of programs that benefit
all our constituents. Our bill funds about 130 accounts with many more
subaccounts and individual projects. It is always possible to find
fault with individual items in the bill, but this bill is a cooperative
effort. I believe it reflects the kind of legislation that a majority
of our Members want to see for their constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind all my colleagues that although
we refer to this as the agricultural appropriations bill, the majority
of funding goes to nonproduction agricultural programs. This bill pays
for badly needed housing, water and sewer, and economic development in
rural America. It pays for human nutrition programs for children and
the elderly. It pays for conservation programs that benefit watersheds
in urban and rural areas. It pays for food safety and medical device
inspection programs that are literally life and death matters. That is
why I oppose this amendment and why I ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I also wanted to make a couple of comments about the prior gentleman's
remarks. No department percentagewise inside this government of the
United States has been cut more than the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. In 1993, there were 129,500 employees. Today the request
of the department would fund 107,700. This is a reduction of over
21,800 positions. I would like any other department of the United
States based on the amount of funds that it receives through the
taxpayers to take this kind of cut. There have been over 35,000
positions cut in the U.S. Forest Service, battling forest fires. Look
what has happened across this country over the last several years. In
meat inspection, so vital to the health of this country, over 9,700
meat inspectors have been cut. I would say to the gentleman, we have
had over a 30 percent cut in the staffing levels at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. So if you are looking for cuts, believe me, this agency
is hemorrhaging. Part of the damage being caused in Oklahoma and other
places in this country is because we are not paying attention to the
production side of the equation inside the United States in rural
America, and that is a true tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), a very respected member of the authorizing committee.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time. I rise in support of this bill. I commend the chairman and
the ranking member for the hard work they have done under some very
difficult circumstances.
We come here today with a situation in agriculture that is worse than
it was a year ago. Farm income stress is only intensifying from last
year. To those that are worried about the spending level on
agriculture, let me make this point. In 1990, net farm income was $44.7
billion. In 1999 it is projected to be $43.6 billion, which includes
all of the $12 billion in subsidies that have been written. At the same
time look at what has happened to the Dow Jones average. It has gone up
230 percent. My colleague from Oklahoma that spoke, I want to commend
him for his honesty and his forthrightness and his persistence. He
voted for the Blue Dog budget. Had the Blue Dog budget passed, we would
have been talking about increased funding for agriculture today. We
would have been talking about meeting the needs of the cotton step-2
program, meeting the additional needs of research in agriculture,
paying the $100 million the WIC program needs in order to meet all of
the human need. The gentleman from Oklahoma voted for it of which I
deeply appreciate. A majority of my colleagues on this side of the
aisle voted for it. If we had only gotten a majority on both sides, we
could have been doing a much more adequate job of meeting the true
needs of agriculture.
Now, we have got a lot of problems that need to be solved. They
should not be attempted to be solved on this bill. It needs to be done
in the House Committee on Agriculture. We have got work to do on crop
insurance, opening world markets. We are going to get an opportunity to
do that. Coordinated policies, working together with USDA in this
Congress. We really cannot afford to wait much longer. I hope and
expect that this year under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest), the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and
those on both sides of the aisle that we will be able to take up in an
orderly fashion those things that need to be done in order to make sure
that agriculture will continue to be for all of America what it is
today.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following correspondence for printing in
the Record:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, May 12, 1999.
Hon. Dan Glickman,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to urge you to give
careful consideration to the development of new programs to
enhance the competitiveness of U.S. wheat exports by
improving the cleanliness and uniformity of grain delivered
to foreign buyers.
Over the past decade, competition in the wheat export trade
has intensified. The domestic wheat industry believes that
cleaner US wheat will be more competitive in foreign markets.
We are writing to urge you to develop a program that would
provide assistance to export elevators for the financing of
high speed cleaning equipment.
In recent months, we have had some very strong reminders of
just how important exports are to US agriculture, along with
the recognition that we need to make our products as
competitive as possible. We believe that improvement of the
domestic cleaning infrastructure is a worthwhile investment
that will help US wheat gain market share in the years to
come. Capital investments made now will ensure the future
competitiveness of the US grain industry.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal, and we
look forward to working with you in developing and
implementing a program that will enhance US grain
competitiveness in world markets.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Stenholm.
Jerry Moran.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the esteemed
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who has spent so many hours
and weeks working on this bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their hard
work in what has been a difficult feat to balance the important
priorities of this bill given the budget constraints that the
subcommittee faces. I am concerned that we could not do more to support
vital programs, however, that improve the day-to-day lives of
hardworking American families; providing a safety net for farmers in
crisis, reducing smoking among young people,
[[Page 10825]]
ensuring high quality nutrition for parents and their children. These
are issues not receiving enough attention. First there is a crisis
facing our farmers today. From low grocery store food prices to safe
food on the dinner table, the benefits of U.S. agriculture are
immeasurable to each and every American family. Farmers across this
country are begging Congress to do something and, by God, we must do
something.
This bill does not do enough to address the depression level prices
our farmers face. A serious issue before this Nation is tobacco use
among America's youth. Each day an astounding 3,000 teenagers take up
the smoking habit. The loss to America equals 420,000 lives. This year
the President requested a $30 million increase to expand the
partnership between the FDA and States to enforce the laws prohibiting
tobacco sales to minors. The additional funding would have enlarged
this successful and business-friendly program that would have been
expanded to 50 States. Sadly, this bill does not provide this important
investment, made even more essential because States like Connecticut,
my own State, are not investing their money from the tobacco settlement
into educating the public about the dangers of smoking. I am concerned
about the little over $4 billion allocated for the WIC program in that
it may not be able to cover all of its participants. WIC guarantees
that 7.4 million women and their children receive solid nutrition and
health advice, preventing future illness and serious health problems. I
am disappointed that funds could not be found to take the first steps
toward a study of the benefits and the costs of a universal school
breakfast program, a study that has already been authorized by the
Goodling Act. Regional studies have linked school breakfast programs
with higher test scores, better behavior and improved attendance. But a
truly rigorous and a comprehensive study is necessary to nail down and
to solidify the proof of that relationship.
This is an unfunded mandate. If the Congress is going to require this
study, it must provide the funding. I again applaud my colleagues for
facing these restrictions. These issues deserve our highest commitment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) for yielding me this time and for his leadership in putting
this appropriations bill together, and also to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership with the gentleman from New
Mexico.
As many of my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, I have spent all of my
productive life in agriculture and have followed these proceedings in
Congress for many, many years as related to a national agricultural
policy. In 1996, this Congress decided to write a new farm bill which
my people back home called Freedom to Fail. Prior to that time, many of
us came to Washington and asked the Congress to take a long, hard look
before it changed national ag policy. We had a policy in this country
that worked. Obviously there was a consolidation of farming over the
years like there has been in every industry that weeded out some of the
less efficient operators. But certainly if you were efficient and a
good operator, under the policy that existed, you could make a living
in agriculture. It established and kept a strong agricultural economy
for our Nation. I stand today speaking in support of the bill that is
brought to this floor by the gentleman from New Mexico and the
gentlewoman from Ohio. They are working within the confines of the
Balanced Budget Agreement that we put in place in 1997. Actually I
think we were treated very well in these allocations, given the
confines of the budget that we are working under. As the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said earlier, had we passed the Blue Dog budget
which many of the folks on both sides of the aisle voted for, we would
have a few more bucks to play with here. But I think really the debate
today is not about whether this appropriations bill is good or bad,
because it is absolutely the best that we can do under the
circumstances that we have been presented with. But it has to do with a
larger picture, and, that is, what is the national agricultural policy
of this Nation?
I just want to throw out a couple of things for Members'
consideration. Number one is, in 1996 when that farm bill was written,
the farmers were promised if they would give up their safety net, they
were promised in exchange a loosening of regulations and, secondly,
opening of world markets. Well, they gave up the safety net, but in
both cases they did not get what they were promised. They did not get a
loosening of regulations and they certainly have not gotten an opening
of the world markets.
{time} 1430
Now many people want to blame the administration. I do not think the
administration is to be blamed here. It was the Congress that wrote
this piece of legislation, and it is the Congress that ought to go
revisit it.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to strongly encourage the
Members to support this piece of legislation, and I want to thank the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) for their work.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the hard-working member of the authorizing
committee.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for yielding this time to me, and I want to thank the chairman
and the ranking member of this committee for the hard work that they
have done.
Mr. Chairman, America is the greatest Nation that has ever been today
because of our ability to domestically produce safe, affordable and
abundant agriculture commodities. The American farmer is the most
productive ever anywhere in the world. The American farmer only asks
for a chance. If we will just give him a chance, he will do the rest.
A combination of factors have contributed to historically low
commodity prices that are being received by our American farmers today.
We have got a crisis in rural America, and we need to face that crisis.
This bill is a good effort to begin that. It a shame that we do not
have more money in this bill for America's farmers, but I know that it
is the best that the appropriators could do with what they had to work
with.
Congress has an obligation to protect the food and fiber security of
America. Current budget restrictions and resulting appropriations for
agriculture do not allow for adequate devotion of financial resources
to properly address the crisis that American agriculture faces today.
We need to commit to America's farmers to protect the food and fiber
security that our country has historically provided.
I firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the further we get from our
rural agrarian roots that Thomas Jefferson envisioned, the more social
problems we have, and it is something that is of great concern to me.
But this is just another reason why we should do the best we can to
fund the Department of Agriculture and support America's farmers.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies, I rise in support of this bill and, first of all,
would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their very hard work. The
subcommittee enjoys a bipartisan cooperation, and I have really enjoyed
working with all the colleagues to get this bill on the floor today.
This bill feeds our schoolchildren, ensures the safety of
prescription drugs and medical devices, protects our environment to
water and soil conservation, restores Congress' commitment to
agricultural research and rejects the President's desire to cut ongoing
science. It helps expand our increasingly important export markets, and
most importantly, it protects the taxpayer.
[[Page 10826]]
Just as importantly, this bill does not include some of the
President's proposals. Probably the most egregious is the fact that in
the President's budget he had a $504 million new increase in fees on
struggling livestock producers. These are the folks who have undergone
some of the worst prices in history, and again, another increase in fee
for grain farmers to the tune of $20 million that the President wanted
to put on those farmers.
I would like to engage the gentleman from New Mexico in a colloquy,
if I may.
Mr. Chairman, my intention is to clarify the committee to provide not
less than $27,656,000 for the National Plant Germplasm System for
Fiscal Year 2000. With this funding, our best and brightest scientists
working throughout the Nation will continue to help farmers provide
abundant, safe, nutritious and affordable supplies of food fiber.
Mr. Chairman, is it the committee's intention to name that funding
level in the conference report?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman that the
committee will work hard to meet that funding level.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) from the authorizing committee, who has
worked with us every step of the way on this bill.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for the
time, and I want to rise in support of this appropriation bill, and I
want to commend both the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the
ranking member of the subcommittee agriculture appropriations.
I rise in support of the bill because there are many things in this
bill that is very much needed in agriculture. It provides obviously the
money of more than $60 billion in agriculture programs including moneys
for research, including moneys for farm service administration,
including moneys for rural housing, including money for WIC and
nutrition programs, agricultural research; so many parts of this
program are essential for the infrastructure and ongoing agriculture
and research program.
However I also raise issues that are deficits. There are still lack
of funding of recognition in these program. One in particular I think,
the ranking member from agriculture raised the issue about Cotton Step
2. Obviously that is very, very important to my district in terms of
having the opportunity to market in that area. I am sensitive to the
cooperative research is $14.2 million below the request, and I know all
the land grant schools throughout the United States are indeed in need
of those monies, and the conservation program again is underfunded, and
yet there are more requirements in requiring them to implement the
programs. They do not have the resources to do that, and I just say to
our colleagues that if they expect for a full implementation, they have
to have the resources.
Again, the whole issue of disadvantaged farmers I know will be
addressed, and I am appreciative of that, but I want to say now to both
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and to the ranking member I
will be glad to support that amendment. There are issues that I think
we can still revisit, hopefully, from the amendment process, but I want
to commend both of them and say to my colleagues who think that we are
spending too much money that I think we have the unique position of
being first out of the box and being most conservative so we get to be
kind of whipping boy, whipping girl, and I think that is unfair to
rural America, I think it is certainly unfair to the farmers that feed
us and provide fiber for us.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, and I want to congratulate him and the ranking member on
this subcommittee, a subcommittee on which I am proud to serve, for
their good work in trying to craft a bill that stays within the budget
caps.
Agriculture has some very difficult challenges this year and next,
and what I hope this bill will do is provide adequate resources for our
farmers, not only in the area of agriculture research, but in other
areas in which we think the free market system has a better chance to
work.
One of the things I am disappointed that the bill does not contain, I
am going to introduce an amendment later about it, is the issue of
sanctions relief. I feel we need to be in a position to open world
markets that are currently shut off from our farmers, and this may not
be the vehicle, but we have to open those markets.
So open markets, adequate funding of agriculture research, and there
will be some challenges to that today, but I think we have to resist
those challenges to government-funded research. It is critically
important to our farmers.
So, I urge support of this bill. I appreciate the good work of the
gentleman from Mexico and the people of our subcommittee, and I urge
its passage.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about my remaining time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 30 seconds
remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the
distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who has fought for
agriculture not only in Vermont, but throughout our country.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me, and I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking
member for the outstanding work they have done on this bill. I think,
however, there is no disagreement that the committee is forced to
operate under very severe budget constraints. There is no debate about
that, and I would simply want to remind every Member of the U.S. House
of Representatives that in this great country, in this country which is
wealthier than any other country in the history of the world, today
there are millions and millions of Americans who are hungry, who are
hungry, and what does it say about our national priorities that we see
a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, that we see a
situation when some want to provide over a trillion dollars in tax
breaks over the next 15 years, and yet hospital administrators tell us
that when senior citizens go to the hospital, they are finding many
seniors who are suffering from malnutrition? What does it say about our
country when school administrators tell us that when kids get to school
in the morning many of these children come from families which do not
have enough money to provide them with adequate breakfast or adequate
lunches, that these kids are unable to do the school work that they
otherwise would be able to do? They fall off the wagon, and they get
into trouble.
Is that what America is about? I think not.
Now I understand the limitations that there are in this bill because
of the overall budget, but I would hope that every Member of Congress
understands that the day has got to come and come soon when this
country wipes out the disgrace of having hungry people within our
wonderful Nation.
Second of all, Mr. Chairman, within that context we must be aware of
the plight that family farmers in rural America are suffering from one
end of this country to the other. Other people have made this point,
and I want to repeat it. If we do not stand up and protect the small
family farmer, we are going to lose that important aspect of what makes
this country great.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds, my last one-half minute,
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
[[Page 10827]]
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman and
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for facing a very
difficult task head on and doing the absolute best they could in
dealing with our agriculture needs this year. With the falling
commodity prices and drought, it was a very difficult task that we
faced, and the gentleman from New Mexico has taken care of research
activities, conservation funding, distance learning and tele-medicine
programs, FSIS programs, and it is amazing actually that we were able
to get through this as efficiently as possible and deal with these
important problems.
I just hope that every Member of this body understands how important
it is to support this bill as it is.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R.
1906, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur),
the ranking member of the Subcommittee for their hard work in bringing
this bill to the Floor.
Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation
includes funding for several important projects of interest to the
State of Nebraska.
First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 1906 provides $423,000 for
the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance. The Alliance is an
association of twelve leading research universities and corporate
partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new
food manufacturing and processing technologies.
The Alliance awards grants for research projects on a peer review
basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to
provide matching funds. During its fifth year of competition, the
Alliance received 23 proposals requesting $892,374 but it was limited
to funding 9 proposals for a total of $350,000. Matching funds from
industry partners totaled $475,549 with an additional $82,000 from in-
kind contributions. These figures convincingly demonstrate how
successful the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food
manufacturing and processing industries.
Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S.
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good
exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands,
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food
Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link
between universities and industries for the development of competitive
food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn,
ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive
in a increasingly competitive global economy.
This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund
a drought mitigation project at the Agricultural Meteorology Department
at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This level of funding will
greatly assist in the further development of a national drought
mitigation center. Such a center is important to Nebraska and all arid
and semi-arid states. Although drought is one of the most complex and
least understood of all natural disasters, no centralized source of
information currently exists on drought assessment, mitigation,
response, and planning efforts. A national drought mitigation center
would develop a comprehensive program designed to reduce vulnerability
to drought by promoting the development and implementation of
appropriate mitigation technologies.
Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and
the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist
the development and modification of food processing and preservation
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
This Member is also pleased that the legislation has agreed to fund
the following ongoing Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) projects at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln:
Food Processing Center..........................................$42,000
Non-food agricultural products...................................64,000
Sustainable agricultural systems.................................59,000
Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) (a joint effort with Iowa
State University and the University of Missouri)..............644,000
Also, this Member is pleased that H.R. 1906 includes $100 million for
the Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing loan guarantee
program. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to
eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten percent
of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make
loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100% Federal
guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 515 direct
loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government,
the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee
Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults.
Mr. Chairman, this Member appreciates the Subcommittee's support for
the Department of Agriculture's 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee
Program. The program has been very effective in rural communities by
guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income
households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non-
metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees
for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home
or the construction of a new home.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 1906 and urges
his colleagues to approve it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
1906, Agriculture Appropriations for FY 2000. In particular, I wish to
draw my colleague's attention to the valuable work being done by the
Ultraviolet-B (UV-B) Monitoring Program at Colorado State University.
This program provides information on the geographical distribution
and temporal trends of UVB radiation in the United States. This
information is critical to the assessment of the potential impacts of
increasing ultraviolet radiation levels on agricultural crops and
forests. Specifically, it provides information to the agricultural
community and others about the climatological and geographical
distribution of UVB irradiance.
In a broader sense, the monitoring program supports research that
increases our understanding of the factors controlling surface UVB
irradiance and provides the data necessary for assessing the impact of
UVB radiation on human health, ecosystems and materials.
Beginning in 1992, Congress appropriated two million dollars per year
in support of this research effort. At that level of funding, the
program was able to get underway and to carry forward some money each
year. Recently, appropriations have been at $1,000,000 annually, which,
with the carry over amounts have been adequate. As of FY 1999, the
carry-over funds have been exhausted. The President's budget calls for
$1,750,000 to simply continue this program at current funding levels.
H.R. 1906 appropriates $1,000,000 for this program, but I remain
hopeful that the goal of $1,750,000 can be accommodated during the
upcoming conference committee with the other body.
Mr. Chairman, since the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in
1985, I have been personally very concerned about the impact of UVB
radiation on all of earth's living systems. This program is surely a
step toward understanding and monitoring this significant threat to all
of our ecosystems.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, after experiencing one weather-related
disaster after another, the future of production agriculture and family
farming in middle and south Georgia faces a threat of almost
unprecedented proportions.
This is not a sudden, overnight crisis. Farmers, bankers, and
communities dependent on production agriculture have been in a crisis
mode for some time.
Our farmers have faced a threatening situation that has now become
even more severe.
I have visited farms to meet with farmers all across the Second
District and to see first-hand the destruction that has been wrought by
the droughts and other disasters which have struck our area. Indeed,
the University of Georgia has estimated farmgate value lost during the
past crop year at over $767 million.
The bill contains many of the crucial programs which are needed to
restore a vibrant farm economy.
It provides $2.3 billion for direct and guaranteed farm operating
loans, $647 million more than the current fiscal year.
It contains $559 million for direct and guaranteed farm ownership
loans, $49 million more than the current year.
Research is the backbone of ag production, and it would be
irresponsible for the federal
[[Page 10828]]
government to abdicate its role in this area. This is why we need to
leave all this partisan bickering behind and get on with the business
of providing the $836 million for the Agricultural Research Service
that is in this bill.
For the extension service that is so important to our farmers, this
bill has $916 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service activities.
There is $71 million for USDA's Risk Management Agency, which manages
the federal crop insurance program. How else will the Congress ensure
that insurance products that can effectively protect against risk of
loss are developed? How will we ever get to the point where farmers can
adequately recover their costs of production following a disaster and
pay premiums that are affordable?
The bill will fund the $654 million needed for operation of USDA's
Natural Resource Conservation Service. This agency helps farmers
conserve, improve, and sustain the soil and water on their land for
future generations.
This bill includes a $300,000 allocation to expand research into ways
to protect the few consumers who are allergic to peanuts, and thereby
to prevent misguided efforts to ban or reduce peanut consumption.
Prices for southeast timber are at a record low, and it would be
financially damaging to force growers facing thinning-out deadlines to
sell their harvested timber on the current market. This is why this
good bill includes language giving farmers an extension until January
1, 2003 for thinning out and selling their timber under the
Conservation Reserve Program.
I ask my colleagues to let this House do the work expected of us by
our farmers.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address some language contained
in the Committee report on the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
The language ``directs'' that the FDA not proceed with a highly
controversial rulemaking on ephedrine-containing products. The
inclusion of this report language is an attempt to subvert regular
order. The proper course for the proponents of the language to address
this issue is to contact the Commerce Committee, which exercises
primary jurisdiction over FDA matters. I therefore urge the House-
Senate conferees to drop the language in conference. Further, I intend
to closely monitor the regulatory proceeding at issue to ensure that
FDA meets all of its legal obligations.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109, $2,836,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000
of this amount, along with any unobligated balances of
representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural Service,
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses, not otherwise provided for, as determined by the
Secretary: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be
used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the
Department of Agriculture to carry out section 793(c)(1)(C)
of Public Law 104-127: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available by this Act may be used to enforce
section 793(d) of Public Law 104-127.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the chairman and the ranking
member for their efforts in appropriations in this appropriation bill
related to agriculture. Obviously a Member of Congress who comes from
the district I come from is very concerned about the agriculture
economy, and the impact of this appropriation bill upon my State is
significant, and I commend the committee for its efforts.
{time} 1445
I do want to raise a topic that is of great concern to me and to the
many small businesses that I represent within the agribusiness
community of Kansas. I have an amendment to be offered later today that
would allow small meat processors with sales under $2.5 million and
less than 10 employees to have an additional year before their
compliance with USDA's HACCP, the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points Inspection System would take effect and impact them.
This amendment would apply only to the smallest local meat processors
and would in no way change the inspection system in our large
nationwide plants.
There are significant problems out there. In fact, the U.S. Small
Business Administration has concluded in its letter to USDA that
something must be done. Their conclusion in their letter to USDA, dated
July 5 of 1995, says, ``The Office of Advocacy at the SBA remains
deeply troubled by the failure of FSIS to analyze properly the impact
of HACCP on small businesses.'' Requires, among other things, that an
agency tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on businesses
of differing sizes.
There are many alternatives which USDA could pursue which have been
either rejected or overlooked by FSIS and which would reduce the
compliance burden on our smallest businesses.
This is Sam's Locker across the country in the smallest communities
of our Nation, and many of them are going out of business, really on a
weekly basis. I pick up the paper and the local locker plant in one of
my communities across Kansas is closing its doors because of the cost
and burden of compliance with this rule which will take effect January
1 of the year 2000.
The Small Business Administration says that the smallest firms face
the greatest burden in both absolute and per-unit costs and suggests
that there are a number of alternatives which USDA has not explored. So
I intend later today to offer an amendment that would delay the
implementation for approximately 9 months of this last phase of HACCP
regulations.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern and
his remarks. It is good to know that someone is looking out for the
small businessperson.
As it happens, the committee has commissioned a GAO study of the
HACCP process, and if possible, I will try to include the gentleman's
concern in that study, or work with him during the conference on the
issues that he has just raised.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate
the comments from the gentleman and I look forward to working with the
gentleman from New Mexico on this issue. It is a significant one.
Mr. SKEEN. As they say in our country, igualmente, equally.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Executive Operations
chief economist
For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including
economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
energy and new uses, and the functions of the World
Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), and including
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to
exceed $5,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$5,620,000.
national appeals division
For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
including employment pursuant to the second sentence of
section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of
which not to exceed $25,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109, $11,718,000.
office of budget and program analysis
For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second
sentence of
[[Page 10829]]
section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of
which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109, $6,583,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Page 3, line 23, after dollar amount insert ``(reduced by
$463,000)''.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman reserves a point of order.
Ms. KAPTUR. We do not have the amendment on this side and have not
seen it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will distribute copies of the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is that the
$463,000 represents over a 7 percent increase for this department,
Office of Budget and Program Analysis. Again, I will restate the
obvious.
I believe that the money that we spend on agricultural programs ought
to be going to our farmers, and I object to the fact that we are
increasing overhead and bureaucratic expense, and that this money is
not available to the farmers in my district. This money is not
available to put the FSA offices back close to the farmers instead of
having it 90 miles away from my farmers.
So what we have done by this increase over the baseline from last
year is spend money in Washington and not spend money on our farmers.
The purpose of this amendment is to bring us back to last year.
I again want to go back. Any dollar that is spent that should not be
spent is a dollar of Social Security money stolen from our seniors and
our grandchildren. The Social Security Administration estimates that in
the year 2020 to 2022, to stay even with Social Security, despite no
other changes, that we will have an effective FICA tax rate, a Social
Security tax rate of somewhere between 22 and 24 percent, somewhere
double where we are today. So if we continue to have this kind of
spending, which we know, if it is not absolutely necessary, will be
taking money from our grandchildren, our grandchildren will repay this
money. Any money that is spent in this bill for a service that is not
absolutely necessary is a dollar stolen from our Social Security.
What does that mean? That means, number one, that the Social Security
surplus is less. Number two, that means the debt, external debt that we
hold today will not decrease by that amount, and that is what we have
been doing with the excess Social Security money; we have been paying
off bankers and foreign governments who own our Treasury notes and
Treasury bills and putting an IOU in the Social Security system. So
that also is a lost opportunity for savings on external debt.
Number three, it pretends to be a situation that rationalizes that in
hard times, like we are in today spending money on a war in Yugoslavia,
we can afford to have a 7-plus percent increase in bureaucratic
overhead.
It is my feeling that the people in my district are best represented
when the money that is spent for agriculture goes to our farmers, not
to the bureaucratic administration of that aid to our farmers.
So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would make the point again that we are
going to have close to $149 billion in excess Social Security payments
in the year 2000, and that this one small area, this one small amount
of $463,000 is enough to supply Social Security in the future for
several of our grandchildren, especially if it is not spent and
compounded and earned.
Mr. Chairman, one of our colleagues, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) took 6 years, the years from 1944 to 1950, and
took the amount of money that was put into Social Security. Had that
money been saved and not spent and invested at a rate of 6 percent
return, there would be $3 trillion from those 6 years in Social
Security today. So by spending money, rather than saving money as it
was initially intended, what we are doing is losing opportunity for our
children.
Mr. Chairman, I plan on offering this amendment. I am in hopes that
people will support the fact that we do not need to have this much of
an increase to be able to accomplish this as the purpose of this
budgetary office. It is my hope that we can have an acceptance of this
amendment, that the chairman will look favorably on this amendment,
knowing that the dollars to pay for this will come not only from the
seniors who have trouble getting by today, will come from the
commitment that we made not to touch one penny of Social Security.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman insist on her point of order?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we have been provided now with copies of
this amendment, so I withdraw my point of order.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coburn amendment because I
just believe it is time to keep our promise, and this is one place we
have to start. We have told the American people that we balanced the
budget, and I really believe that now we need to stick to our word,
because otherwise we are not being true to them.
I understand and sympathize with the American farmers; I understand
the committee's concerns and problems. In fact, we just passed a
supplemental bill that added additional dollars for farmers.
But since this year's budget resolution calls for $10 billion in
discretionary spending cuts, we have to make the cuts to stick to the
balanced budget agreement and protect and preserve Social Security, and
the time to start is now.
There is never a good time. That is the difficult thing about this
place, because it is always hard not to spend money in a culture that
is set up to spend, spend, spend. That is what Washington does and does
well.
It is always easy to stick pork in bills to spend more money; it
happens every day. I think that is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, we have to stand up for our principles of lowering
taxes and protecting 100 percent of Social Security for our children
and our grandchildren. They are depending on that. They look to us to
be responsible, and as we do our bills, as this whole appropriations
process goes forward, we have to be really conscious of that.
It is time to put the good of the country ahead of personal ambition
and tighten our belts. Without cuts now, and this is a relatively
noncontroversial bill, if we cannot do it here, how in the world are we
going to reduce spending in the other 12 appropriations bills?
Mr. Chairman, for years, Congress has raided Social Security and
funded pork barrel spending, and I believe it needs to stop; and today
is a good time to stop it. I support the Coburn amendment, and I
support fiscal responsibility.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the pending question following the quorum call.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, is there a planned quorum call at this
time? Can the Chair advise as to the planned quorum call?
The CHAIRMAN. There is a quorum call at the point of order request of
the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. And will that be granted?
The CHAIRMAN. It will be. It has been.
The call was taken by electronic device.
[[Page 10830]]
The following members responded to their names:
[Roll No. 151]
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--399
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
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
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
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
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1515
The CHAIRMAN. Three hundred and ninety-nine Members have answered to
their name, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its
business.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133,
noes 285, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 152]
AYES--133
Aderholt
Archer
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Blunt
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
English
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Lazio
Leach
Linder
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Ramstad
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
NOES--285
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
[[Page 10831]]
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Baker
Brown (CA)
Graham
Granger
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Largent
Millender-McDonald
Nadler
Ortiz
Reyes
Rothman
Smith (TX)
Whitfield
{time} 1523
Mr. EHRLICH and Mr. SESSIONS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Page 3, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $231,000)''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the House did not concur
with the last amendment to hold the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis at last year's level.
The above-intended amendment is designed to cut the increase in that
office in half. Instead of having an almost 8 percent increase, this
will offer the employees and administrators in that office a 4 percent
increase.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry regarding
the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for an inquiry?
Mr. COBURN. Yes, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, is this a new amendment that the gentleman
from Oklahoma is proposing?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment under the same section
at the same line item to cut the rate of increase in one-half of what
the committee has recommended for the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis within the Department of Agriculture.
{time} 1530
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman if we have a copy
of this amendment?
Mr. COBURN. It is my understanding that this amendment was given to
the Chair, and I will be happy to supply the gentlewoman with a copy of
it at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will distribute copies of the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma may proceed.
Mr. COBURN. So the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, having
the House, with 137 Members, I believe, agree that we should freeze
this spending, given the fact that the increase in spending is going to
be above this last year's fiscal year and will come from Social
Security surpluses, the purpose of this amendment is to decrease by
one-half the amount of increase in the Department at this level.
I have before me a sample of what most seniors probably think is
going on right now, a check from the Social Security Trust Fund for
$231,000. This still gives that department in that area an increase
two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation. Very few people within our
districts and within the private sector are seeing increases in their
operating and overhead or their expense or their salaries going up at
two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation.
It is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of
Management and Budget that the Social Security surplus this year will
be $149 billion. On track, the first appropriation bill to meet this
House, has an increase over last year. The budget agreement that we
agreed to with the President in terms of meeting the targeted spending
in 1997, the budget that passed this House, the minority-sponsored
budget, all had provisions to protect Social Security 100 percent. The
purpose of this amendment is to try to keep us at our word, to protect
Social Security dollars. It is my feeling and my conviction that we do
that best by, with the first bill, setting an example on how we are
going to spend money.
I recently had a Member come up and say that I was a good reason to
vote against term limits, because I was offering amendments to decrease
the spending in Washington and that I felt we should not spend any
money that comes from Social Security. Well, I would portend just the
opposite of that. I think that is a good reason to vote for people with
term limits.
The fact is that we are spending $260 million more in this
appropriation bill than we did last year. The purpose of this amendment
is to trim some of that. It is not to inhibit what we do with our
farmers, it is to make sure that the money that we put into the
Department of Agriculture gets to the very people that we want it to.
By having an 8 percent increase in this office, a portion of that money
could be saved, could be preserved in Social Security, could be used to
lower the FICA taxes that our children and grandchildren are going to
have to pay so they will be able to have Social Security.
It is not anything but incumbent on Members of this body to try to
spend the taxpayers' money in the way that they believe is in the best
interest of the country and in the best interest of the long-term
security for this Nation. I want to be measured by how I left our
country. I want to be measured when my grandchildren, who are now 3 and
1, look at their income tax statements and look at their payroll slips
and know that we were not responsible for raising the FICA payments
from 12 percent to 25 percent. And that is the estimate from the Social
Security Administration that is going to be required by the year 2022.
We can change what happens in Washington. We do not have to spend
more money.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146,
noes 267, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 153]
AYES--146
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Klink
Largent
Lazio
Leach
Linder
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Ose
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
[[Page 10832]]
MS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft Corp LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLCCLLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLRLRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLCCLLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 3456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcYYYYYYYYYYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYNNNNNNYNNNNNNNNNNNNYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYYYYYYYYYYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYNNNNNNYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ))JLNPRTVXZ\^`bdfhjlnprtvxz|~���������r&��!�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z )*JLNPRTVXZ\^`bdfhjlnprtvxz|~���������r&��!�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z [1;37;41m[12;16H TABULAR:: x%c column not allowed [m[1;37;41m[12;16H Boxhead is too big (SCRATCH_SIZE) [m[1;37;41m[12;16H BELL %c IN BOXHEAD [m[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: Table width exceeds program limitations!! [mc:\temp$$%02d[1;37;41m[19;16H Could not remove temp file [m[20;16H Temp file name = %s [m[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: Fatal error while setting boxhead [m[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: ILLEGAL FUNCTION: BELL %c IN TABLE [m[1;37;41m[12;16H TABULAR:: error on rule indicator [m[1;37;41m[12;16H BELL %c not accounted for [mc:\temp$$%02d[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: can't create temp file %s [m[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: error writing temp file %s [m[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: can't close temp file %s [mc:\temp$$%02d[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: can't open previous created temp file: [m[20;16H %s [m[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: can't read temp file %s [m[1;37;41m[19;16H TABULAR:: can't close temp file %s [m[1;37;41m[19;16H Extremely long table column near: [m[20;16H %s [m[1;37;41m[12;16H TABULAR:: Bell oi%c not allowed for [mREADDEVICEWRITEDEVICE[1;37;41m[19;16H No files matching %s found [m[1;37;41m[19;16H First format number in file required on input [20;16H EXAMPLE: cdtp filnam.ext fmtno [m--m-fr-usc-i-d-ft-a-ts-b-nt-tf'�<�
NOES--267
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Dixon
Fletcher
Gekas
Graham
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Martinez
Millender-McDonald
Nadler
Ortiz
Portman
Reyes
Riley
Rothman
Smith (TX)
Young (AK)
{time} 1558
Mr. Cook and Mr. John changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. George Miller of California, Moran of Virginia, Davis of
Virginia, and Klink changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because of a previously scheduled
commitment, I missed rollcall vote No. 153 during consideration of H.R.
1906, the Fiscal Year Agriculture Appropriations Act.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of the chief information officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, including employment pursuant to the
second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944
(7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $10,000 is for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,051,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Page 4, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $500,000)''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to address
the increase that was given to the Office of the Chief Information
Officer. What we have heard through the general debate on this bill is
that this is a fairly tight bill, and I agree that it is a fairly tight
bill. I also agree that there is also an area where if we spend a
certain amount, $61 billion, that we ought to make sure that that money
that is allocated, that belongs to the taxpayers, actually gets to the
end people that we want it to get to, i.e., the farmers, i.e., the
people that are going to be dependent on it.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer under this appropriation
request received a 9 percent increase. Now, of that $500,000 increase,
what we will see, if we are honest about where the money is going to
come, is it is all going to come from Social Security. We are going to
take surplus Social Security money and we are going to spend it to give
a 9 percent increase. For us to keep the agreement not to spend Social
Security money, to keep the agreement that the President and the
Congress signed off on in 1997, that we have to cut spending $10
billion, not increase it a quarter of a billion as this bill does, we
have to make some trims back in these appropriation bills.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am informed that the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies has
brought this bill to the floor within their 302(b) allocation and
therefore am of the opinion that it is funded by general fund revenues
and has nothing to do with the Social Security funds the gentleman is
speaking to.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is a literal
statement that in fact at the end of the day will not be true. Because
by saying that this is within the 302(b) means that you also would
agree that Labor HHS could be cut $4.9 billion which is also in the
302(b) for Labor HHS. I assure you that neither you nor I would vote
for an appropriation bill at that level. So what I would tell the
gentleman is that the 302(b)s really are not applicable to the process
that we are seeing going on right now because the end game is we are
going to spend Social Security money and we are not going to be below
the $10 billion. I understand how that works, you understand how that
works, and although technically this committee is within the 302(b)
allocation, the 302(b) allocations are designed so that in the long run
we will spend Social Security money.
Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, this House passed a
budget. These are the early appropriation bills coming to the floor
under that budget. Much was made by the majority in consideration of
the budget that it was protecting Social Security. Here we have the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture bringing his bill up within
the allocation he had.
Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would agree to vote
for this bill under its 302(b) and agree to vote for the Labor HHS bill
under its 302(b), I will be happy to buy his discussion of this
argument. But I would portray that I will not vote for a Labor HHS bill
that is cut by $4.9 billion and I would surmise that he probably would
not do that under the same argument. The fact is that the 302(b)s are
not an accurate reflection of where we are going with the budget
process this year. They are in terms of total dollars, and I would
agree with the gentleman in terms of total dollars, but what they are
is front-end-loaded and at the tail end is the very things that most
people are going to need besides our farmers, those that are most
dependent on us, the veterans, those that do not have housing, those
that are needy in terms of Medicaid, Medicare and the supplemental
things that we do to help those people, those dollars are not going to
be available. So what we are going to do is we are either going
[[Page 10833]]
to pass a bill that cuts those severely, which neither of us I would
surmise would vote for, or we are going to go into a negotiation again
with the President and bust the budget caps and in fact spend Social
Security money. So I will stick with my argument that this bill,
because it is above last year and is not below last year, will in the
end ultimately spend seniors' money.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want us to look very closely at what is going on
here. This is an appropriations bill brought up pursuant to the budget
plan passed by this House. The chairman of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies was given a 302(b) allocation and he has brought his
bill forward under that allocation. This is not about emergency
spending. This is not about extra allocation spending. This is a
chairman that has done everything right, operating under the 302(b)
allocation the Committee on Appropriations received under the budget
plan passed by the majority. So I simply do not believe that it is
rooted in fact that we need to look at this for other than it is,
spending for agriculture.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I guess if we were to ask the seniors who
are on Social Security in Oklahoma and those from your State if they
believe it is appropriate that this office get a 9 percent increase
this year and what did they get in terms of their Social Security
increase, I think most of them would object to the fact that we cannot
be more efficient. That is the point I am making.
Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I was respectful to the gentleman in
his 5 minutes and I want to make a couple of points. The farmers of
this country are in a world of hurt. I have lived all my life in North
Dakota and I have never seen it as bad as it is today. We have prices
that do not cover the cost of production. This body made a decision
that we were not going to protect farmers when prices collapsed and
prices have collapsed below the cost of production. As a result, we
have got farmers going bankrupt all over the country. We have got
auction sales in North Dakota that do not quit. Now, this Congress
because we have got a farm bill that is not working has tried to do a
lot of things. Members will remember last year, we passed increasing
the AMTA payments, we passed accelerating the AMTA payments, more money
to farmers to somehow tide them through this situation. We passed a
disaster bill that has proven to be the most confusing disaster bill
ever passed and the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not even get it
all fully available until June of this year. Now, through this all, the
farmer understands one thing. He is losing money, and he is about out
of time. He does not understand all these relief measures that we are
trying to pass because they are confusing, they are haphazard, they
have been passed in a happenstance way and in an ad hoc way. The Public
Information Office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has never been
more important. And if you think everyone gets it in terms of what is
available for them, you just call one of your farmers right this
afternoon and ask them. It is chaos out there and confusion. They do
not know what is available. The U.S. Department of Agriculture needs to
do a better job. Secondly, it needs the resources so that it can do the
job we expect them to do. We have changed the farm program. We have
ended the price support that has been part of farm policy for four
decades. We are now operating under ad hoc, give them some money here,
get them some money there, build a program, try to tide us through, and
all of that is very confusing. This public information function is
vital. When we pass a response to farmers, that just does not mean that
money appears in the bank account. You have got to run the program.
That means have the people understand it, have them come in, have it
administered in the field offices and get the checks out. This is an
essential part of that bargain. This is under the absolute legitimate
function of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture operating
under their allocation bringing this money to the floor.
I notice that all of the Republican leadership voted for the last
Coburn amendment. Does the Republican leadership not understand the
crisis that we have in farm country? We have an absolutely deadly
threat to our farmers. We are going to lose family farming as we know
it today without responding. And so I do not want this to be a
Republican or Democrat majority-minority thing. This is a bill for
farmers at a time when they have never ever needed it more. So let us
save those arguments about these unrelated matters, make them in
special orders, make them another time, but let us today, this
afternoon, stand for our farmers. They desperately need the help.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma.
While I know that the debate, as we go forward, might get just a little
bit convoluted, we might begin that old discussion of apples and
oranges, the fact is, the gentleman from Oklahoma recognizes this, that
last year we made a solid, ironclad promise to the seniors in this
country; and that was that we, as a Congress, would do everything
within our power in a bipartisan way, both Republicans and Democrats,
to protect the solvency of Social Security.
The fact is, the gentleman from Oklahoma has recognized, I think, as
many of us do, that within this total budgetary process, he sees that
train wreck coming. The fact is, at the end of the day, after it is all
done, if we fund government, if we fund the bureaucracies at the level
that all of these proposals are coming in at, we will end up having to
rob Social Security to cover up the difference. Frankly, I am not going
to be a party to that.
I know the gentleman has risked a lot to put forth, what, close to
100 amendments today because he believes so strongly in the sanctity,
the sacredness of making that promise to the seniors in our country,
the seniors in this land. Every amendment that he offers, you are going
to hear arguments why the bureaucracy that they are defending is more
important than the promise and the commitment, the sacred commitment,
that we made to our senior citizens. Frankly, I am going to side with
the gentleman from Oklahoma on this one.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
I have listened to well-meaning people here today. The sponsor of the
amendment certainly is, and the last speaker certainly was; my friend
from North Dakota certainly is. But let us make sure we understand what
we are really talking about here.
All this discussion about senior citizens being hurt by something
that we might or might not do relative to emergency spending or busting
the budget caps or whatever the spending argument might be is just
false. Nobody is going to hurt any senior citizens. Senior citizens are
not going to be touched in this debate on Social Security.
It is my generation that is going to be hurt. And the younger people
who are baby boomers are going to have to face this Social Security
issue. It is not going to affect senior citizens. We are not going to
cut Social Security that affects their lives. We are talking about out
to 2032, for goodness sakes. So I think that is a false argument as we
talk about agriculture.
My friend from North Dakota, as a strong advocate of agriculture and
rural agriculture, like I am because I come from a district that
depends on it, is mistaken relative to the farm bill of 1996 somehow
causing the low prices around the world. That is nonsense in my
judgment.
What is happening is, we are in a world market economy that has some
price depressions. It is not the farm bill
[[Page 10834]]
that has caused problems for our farmers; it is the fact that we do not
have markets, for crying out loud.
My argument is, we ought to be lifting sanctions on those countries
which we have previously traded with that have been good customers of
our farmers, in a free market system, not more government control or
more government regulation or more command and control farming for the
government in our system. This free market system is a good one.
{time} 1615
Ask farmers. I have asked them, and they have told me: We like the
system, but we have to have freedom to market our products overseas,
and we do not have it right now, and we need less regulation at the
Federal level, at the USDA level. That is what is going to save and
help our farmers.
So I am all in favor of making cuts wherever we can, but as my
colleagues know, the chairman here has worked hard within our budget
allocation to do what is right for agriculture. Most of this money in
this ag budget goes for food stamps, WIC programs, as my colleagues
know, food safety and other social sides of spending relative to
agriculture. It is not the farmers that are getting some great
windfall. The farmers are hurting. So the biggest part of this budget
goes to the social spending side of agriculture which is lumped into
the ag appropriations bill.
So we are not going to hurt senior citizens in this process where
certainly our farmers are needing help, but I think it can be done
better in the market economy rather than in more government control. As
my colleagues know, more regulations and rules at the Federal level are
going to hurt our farmers and restrict them even more.
So, Mr. Chairman, let us make sure we understand what we are talking
here, and I understand the motivation of my friend from Oklahoma. He
has got good motivation, but this bill is within our budget targets,
and we are trying to do all we can for farmers as well as the WIC
program and food safety and all the rest that is lumped into this very
difficult challenge of trying to make the ag budget work and be
balanced.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I do not have much time, but I yield to the gentleman
from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's discussion.
One question that the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy)
really refused to answer was whether he would be able to support the
later appropriation bills with as much as $3 to $5 billion in
reductions so that we could stay within the overall cap and stop using
the Social Security surplus. I know the gentleman has worked with us in
the past to make sure that we could do that, but I just wanted to ask
for the record, would he anticipate being able to support those types
of bills with the lower spending in the later part of the process?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is what we have to do one
at a time. I think we have to make that judgment based on what we have
before us. I have got an interest, a strong interest, in biomedical
research, which is part of the Labor-HHS bill. That is extremely
important to me. But I think we have to make tough choices, and so we
are trying to make tough choices. The chairman has in this ag bill in
staying within our caps, but as my colleagues know, we have got to get
them passed, too.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot just not pass something. This, as my
colleagues know, we can fight this bill until the cows come home, but
we got to get something passed, and that is the chairman's motivation,
the chairman of the big committee, the full Committee on
Appropriations' motivation, and as my colleagues know, we can look
downstream and figure out what we are going to have to face. But let us
face it, but let us pass these bills or else we are going to have
nothing to pass until the end of the day.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
It has been an interesting discussion going on here, and it does not
take really a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on when we
see this many amendments on this particular bill, and if we want to do
something about Social Security, let us bring it out here and get on
with it. But if we are going to talk about agriculture, let us say it
like it really is.
Agriculture is in a world of hurt. The last speaker, the previous
speaker, and I just met in the Rayburn Room with some of my bankers
from rural Iowa, and they are talking about the foreclosures that are
starting to take place. It is really happening, it is really happening;
reflections for me, having come out of the State legislature, of what
went on in the 1980s, and it is not a very pretty sight and it is not
good for our country.
Now we might ought to reflect on this a little bit. As my colleagues
know, we are pretty unusual in the world of things at 14, 15 percent,
Mr. Chairman, of disposable income spent on food compared to anywhere
else in the world, modern countries, wherever, 25 or whatever, to
undeveloped countries that take everything, and we have got the most
plentiful, safest food and the least expensive. Now we do not feel that
way when we go to the grocery store, but the truth of it is it is that
way. Now we are messing with our machinery, if my colleagues will, with
our factory, if my colleagues will, that produces this food and fiber.
Now some of these things said need to be expanded on a little bit.
The secretary told us in our Committee on Agriculture here 3 months
ago, something like that, unprecedented, unprecedented worldwide, that
we have got overproduction. So when we go somewhere else to make a
trade or to want to sell, they say: ``Excuse me. We want to sell to
you.''
So, Mr. Chairman, we got a tough situation, and to get the word out
and to make sure that, as my colleagues know, those of them that are
aware of what is going on in the Farm Service Agency offices and so on,
to be able to get the word out as to what is there for them, we need
this to be done. We probably need it more than what we are
appropriating.
And I want to compliment the chairman, too, and I want to compliment
the ranking member for the work they have done within these targets
that were established. Pretty tough. I know they have had a tough
assignment, but they worked hard and put the hours in, and we thank
them for it, and we appreciate it. But we need to pass an ag bill. We
need to tell the farmers out there that provide the food and fiber for
all of us that we know what is going on and that we want to help them
and we want to pass this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I take the time first to compliment my friend and
colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for speaking out so strongly for
those who rely on Social Security, because I have the great privilege
of representing more Social Security recipients than almost every
Member of this House of Representatives, and so I really appreciate the
strong work and the strong message, and I am glad that Congress
recognizes that it is important to keep our commitment to those on
Social Security. And to do that we did adopt a budget resolution that
provided the appropriators with a certain amount of money for
discretionary spending.
Now in that amount of money, we suballocated that money based on what
we refer to as section 302(b) suballocations. Now this is the first of
the 13 regular appropriation bills to come before the House. We have
already done two supplemental bills, one conference report on the
supplemental bills, and now this is the fourth appropriations vehicle
that we have seen for the year. It is within the section 302(b)
suballocation, and the section 302(b) suballocations are within the
budget numbers set by the budget resolution and also within the budget
caps established in 1997.
As a matter of fact, during the work of the full committee there were
numerous amendments that were offered to dramatically increase the
amount of money in this bill, and the Committee
[[Page 10835]]
on Appropriations, determined to stay within the suballocation, the
budget ceiling number, resisted those amendments.
So, Mr. Chairman, we bring to our colleagues a bill that has been
looked at extremely closely by both sides of the House, both parties,
and we came to a workable bill that will meet the requirements of
America's farmers for this fiscal year, and as has been pointed out,
that is important. It is important that America's farmers stay alive
and stay well because while we do import some food, 75 percent of our
nutrition comes from what the American farmer produces.
So again, Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues I would say this bill is
within the section 302(b) suballocations, which are within the budget
resolution number, which are within the 1997 budget caps that all of
the leaders of both political parties in the House, both political
parties in the Senate and the President in the White House have all
said we are going to live within. This bill lives within those budget
caps and within its section 302(b) suballocation, and I would hope that
we could resist these amendments and get on to passing this bill, and
get to conference with the other body and get the funding to the
agriculture community where it is really needed.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman. I believe his heart is right.
As my colleagues know, when 1997 was agreed to, we did not have a war
in Bosnia, we did not have $13 billion that we are going to spend on an
action over there. Where are we going to get the money to pay for that?
Where did that money come from? That money comes from Social Security.
So the debate really is, is the climate in Washington going to
change? Are we going to talk to the President? Are we going to bring
things down and say: We are spending this $13 billion because we got to
fight a war, and there is probably going to be more where that comes
from. We want to plus up defense. I agree with that, but are we going
to live within those budget caps as we do that?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman
that that is a decision that neither he nor I will make. That is a
decision that will be made by the leadership of the House and the
leadership of the Senate. Then the Congress will work its will and
decide if they want to agree or disagree with the decision made by the
leadership.
But I would also respond to the gentleman that for the last 4 years I
had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations. Now last year alone, from the time that I
submitted the bill to the subcommittee to the time that it came to the
floor and to the time it went to conference with the Senate, I had my
section 302(b) suballocation, it was section 602(b) back then, but now
it is section 302(b), I had my suballocation changed three times during
that process.
So it is certainly possible that, as we go through the consideration
of the 13 appropriations bills, we will re-look at adjustments under
the section 302(b)s. But the section 302(b) suballocations that we have
before us today are the best job that we could do based on where we are
and what the budget resolution provides for and what moneys are
available and identifying those important items that need to be
identified.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. McIntosh, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Young of
Florida was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I also appreciate the
chairman's hard work in this area. It cannot be emphasized enough how
difficult the task is.
I think the real question that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) was asking and I would be interested in knowing and I think
frames this debate is: ``Do you think, as chairman of the committee,
when we are finished with all 134 bills we will have met the overall
cap, the 132(a), and not have had to go above that?"
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond to the gentleman that we will
probably spend every nickel and every dime that is provided for in that
budget resolution because, as the gentleman knows because I have told
him this many, many times, if we just froze every account at last
year's level we would be $17 billion over those '97 budget caps, and
that tragedy that we experienced last year, the end of the year so-
called omnibus appropriations bill, if we did everything that that bill
committed us to do, we would be $30 billion over those budget caps that
the gentleman is talking about.
But let me close out this conversation on this subject because Social
Security was Mr. Coburn's original discussion. No one will fail to
receive their Social Security check if this bill passes. No one Social
Security check will be late unless the Y2K problem does not get solved,
and that is something else that we have to worry about.
And I have heard these arguments in this Congress for many years in
an attempt to, whatever the attempt was, and I will not suggest what
the attempt was, to frighten people into thinking that if we did not do
this or did not do that, their Social Security check would not be
coming. That did not happen. The Social Security checks go out, they go
on time, they are deposited electronically on time, and this bill's
passage is not going to affect the outcome of anyone's Social Security
check 1 hour, 1 minute or 1 second or $1.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have had difficulty figuring out where I am today.
When I came over here, I thought that I was attending a session of the
House of Representatives. I did not know that I was really attending a
session of the Republican Caucus.
{time} 1630
It has been very interesting. I am not quite sure what to say about
it. Let me simply suggest that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has, on three
occasions, tried to produce legislation which would meet with
bipartisan approval in this House. Each time, it is interesting to note
that he has run into a roadblock.
That roadblock has not been constructed by members of our party, the
minority; that roadblock has been placed in his way by members of the
majority party, the Committee on Appropriations chairman's own party.
I think all of us know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is
trying to do the right thing both for his party and for this
institution, and for this country. And I, for one, make no apology, and
I do not think he does either, for the level at which this bill is
funded.
I know of no group in the country that has suffered a larger erosion
of income over the past decade or two decades than have American
farmers. I know that we hear a lot about urban poverty, but the fact
is, I can take my colleagues into communities where poverty is just as
excruciating in rural areas. It is just a little bit more anonymous and
it is a little bit further away from the television reporters who are
located in the urban centers of this country.
So I think, given that fact and given the fact that American farmers
are now being exposed to the crunch of world markets as never before, I
do not think we have to apologize for the high funding level in this
bill. This bill, if we compare it to what we appropriated last year,
out of all spigots including emergency appropriations and the famous
Omnibus Appropriations bill, this bill represents a 31 percent cut from
last year.
Now, I would simply say this: We have tried on this side of the
aisle. I did not vote for the budget 2 years ago.
[[Page 10836]]
I thought that it was ill-conceived for this Congress to pass it; I
thought it was ill-conceived for this President to sign it.
There are a lot of things that this Congress and this President have
done that I think are ill-conceived. That was the most spectacular, in
my view. But nonetheless, even though I have disagreed with that
budget, I tried to cooperate with the committee, because that is our
institutional responsibility. But sooner or later, we are going to have
to face the fact that we either make some compromises or nothing
further will get done this year.
This is, as I say, the third time that we have seen a different play
called after the committee brought its legislation, or tried to bring
its legislation, out of subcommittee.
On the last vote, I understand virtually all of the Republican
leadership voted for the amendment that eliminated the funds contained
in the original committee bill. I make no apology for supporting this
bill, but I want to say this to those on my side of the aisle. I do not
believe that we have any greater obligation to stick to the committee
product than does the majority party. And if the leadership of the
majority party is going to vote for amendments which are admitted by
the author to be part of a tactical filibuster, then I would say the
leadership of the House on the Republican side is cooperating in the
destruction of its own ability to produce any progress on appropriation
bills for the rest of the year.
Now, if they want to do that, that is up to them, but I do not think
that is going to be healthy for the House or, in the end, healthy for
their record come October.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman from Wisconsin just
my perspective on roadblocks by one member or another member. My
perspective is that we do not have roadblocks, we do not have partisan
politics. Basically, we have differences of opinions. We come here as
Members of Congress to exchange information, for the most part, have a
sense of tolerance for somebody else's opinion, and then we vote. And
what I see here from the gentleman from Oklahoma and those who support
his position, they have a strongly held conviction that we need to
reduce various budget items for the purpose of saving Social Security,
all of which we would agree with.
I would also say that this is not the Republican Caucus on the House
floor right now; this is the Congress, and we are speaking to various
issues. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts is going to strike some
very humorous comment about that, and I am going to wait around to
listen, because I would appreciate it.
What I do want to say, however, is that I strongly disagree with the
gentleman from Oklahoma on this issue; and what I would like to do is
to read part of the committee bill and then give my opinion on the need
to enhance and preserve and save agriculture and not talk about
agriculture like it is General Motors and we are producing cars out
there, or Westinghouse producing light bulbs.
This is an industry that produces life-needed food for this country,
and we are, for the most part, the warehouse for foodstuffs for the
world. They are doing this on less and less land.
This is what the committee bill says. This bill ``provides funding
for research to strengthen our Nation's food supply to make American
exports competitive in world markets, to improve human nutrition, and
to help ensure food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for
less than 2 percent of the population to provide a wide variety of
safe, nutritious and affordable food for more than 272 million
Americans and many more people overseas.''
What we are seeing in agriculture is, we are losing 1 million acres
of ag land a year. That is not a million acres of ag land 10 years ago
or over the decade, that is every single year we lose 1 million acres
or more of agricultural land for a variety of reasons, but we are
losing it.
So that means, because the population continues to increase, we need
to produce more poultry on less land. We need to produce more milk on
less land. We need to produce more vegetables and more agricultural
products on less land with fewer farmers, and in order to do that, we
need the best technology.
There is all kinds of technology out there, but not all of it is the
best, and not all of it is environmentally safe. Not all of it is going
to work within the confines of what we understand to be the mechanics
of natural processes.
One might be able to create genetically safe corn from the southern
boll weevil, but what other forms of life are going to be damaged in
the process? This is an intricate, very complex, scientific undertaking
that we are doing here today.
Now, I would say that Social Security is safe. This has nothing to do
with Social Security. We are going to preserve Social Security not only
for seniors today, but for future generations.
This bill is about how we, as people, will understand how we are
going to provide food for a growing population on less land; and I
would urge my colleagues to vote for the bill of the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen). It is a good one.
Also for the bill of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
In conclusion, on the House floor, we have various differences of
opinions. We do not see these arguments in Cuba or North Korea or Iraq.
This is the way we do business in this country. We come down here,
sometimes in a very volatile atmosphere, but we discuss, debate, argue,
disagree. We have a sense of tolerance of someone else's opinion, and
then we vote. And that is the final say.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
That is the hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a chance to vote.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on the Budget, and as I
recall, the Committee on the Budget set certain limits, and my
understanding is that agriculture being the first out is under its
302(b) allocation. So the issue about spending more monies than
allocated that are out of compliance of the budget resolution is not
directed at appropriations of agriculture. It is only directed because
it is a convenient model to discuss this issue.
So although this may be a worthy issue to talk about, saving Social
Security, not spending it, and I would entertain the gentleman's
argument that it is a worthy issue, it is misdirected. It should not be
directed here. We should not make agriculture the scapegoat for the
gentleman's worthy discussion. I think it is misplaced.
I do not know what the issue is with agriculture. The gentleman says
he is from an agriculture community. Oklahoma, the last time I heard,
has a lot of issues that are equally as pressing as Social Security.
This agriculture bill takes no more from Social Security than if it had
not passed. It will take a lot from Oklahoma farmers, however, if it
does not pass.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we just heard the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations say that if we come through with last year's
spending, just if we came through with last year's spending, we would
bust the caps from 1997 by $17 billion.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my point, if
we came through the whole process.
We are just starting this process, and the gentleman is attacking the
beginning of the process as if we were the culprit in making that
happen. We are not. So why not apply this theory to the whole?
It is inappropriate to say, if we go through 13 appropriations bills,
the likelihood is that we will bust the caps, that may happen. That is
not the case; it is inappropriate.
So I would just urge my colleagues, and I know the gentleman's
strategy is indeed to prolong this. If, indeed, he wants to have this
discussion, this discussion is an appropriate discussion, but it is
ill-placed directed at the agriculture appropriation.
[[Page 10837]]
In fact, I would suggest that it may be better when we talk about the
lockbox. We are going to have that opportunity. I do not see the
gentleman planning to do that.
We are talking about the subject of Social Security. Here the
gentleman is applying Social Security safety on an agriculture
appropriation as if they are in conflict with each other, and they are
not. The gentleman is making the conflict. The gentleman is placing it
as if the appropriation for agriculture is breaking the caps. It is not
doing that. The whole process may do that, but why make us the
scapegoat for what the gentleman thinks may be an eventuality in that
process.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had understood that the leadership on the other side
had brought this bill up because this was the easy appropriations bill.
I know we are not supposed to address the audience watching this on
television, but my guess is that some of them may be eagerly
anticipating the fun they will have watching the hard appropriations
bills if this is what we do with the easy one. Were it possible to sell
tickets to this circus, we could probably do something about the
revenues, but of course we cannot.
But what I want to talk about is what I think is, in fact, the real
issue here. The real issue is that one of the signal achievements of
the Republican Party, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, is an unmitigated
disaster. Now, there are efforts going on to mitigate it. But let us be
very clear. That is the unspoken premise of this whole debate.
What a terrible mistake this House made with the acquiescence of the
other body and the President in 1997. Everybody gets up and says, oh,
those budget caps, what a terrible thing they were, sort of. Some
people are saying, we are going to hold you to them, and the suggestion
that we are being held to them is considered to be an unfortunate one.
But everybody acts as if the budget caps fell down from the heavens
like the rains or the hail. People have forgotten. Those budget caps
are not a force of nature. They were the vote of this House, and they
were, as I understand it, one of the great achievements of the
Republican Party.
I also agree, by the way, that Social Security is not at risk here.
What is at risk is Medicare. Because that same wonderful 1997 Balanced
Budget Act, which is the greatest orphan in history since it does not
appear to have any parent left, that 1997 Budget Act cut Medicare very
substantially. It cut home health care, it cut prescription drugs in my
State; it has cut hospital reimbursements.
And what do we have now? Surprise, surprise, the 1997 budget caps
which said spending would be the same in 2002 as in 1997. People are
shocked that it is inadequate.
{time} 1645
People are shocked at having voted to cut $115 billion out of
Medicare to pay for a capital gains tax cut, and Medicare is suffering.
What is all the shock coming from? Were Members in a coma when they
voted for the 1997 budget act? Did people not think that voting to keep
spending at the exact level 5 years later was going to cause problems?
Did people think cutting $115 billion out of Medicare would have meant
there would be a shortage of monopoly money the next time they sat down
at the game?
Never in the history of humanity have so many people professed
surprise at the foreseeable consequences of their own actions. Members
ran for office on this budget in 1998. They bragged about it. Now they
are acting as if it was some terrible act of God that we have to live
with.
Everybody in here is Job; Oh, look what has happened to us, and we
will have to live with it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree that that is what the issue is. I believe
the issue is, did the Congress speak and say something, and are they
willing to have the American people believe that they are going to do
what they told them they would do.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will
respond to the gentleman, when the gentleman says ``do what they say
they were going to do,'' that is what we said we were going to do in
1997, is that correct? The issue is whether we are going to live up to
the Act of 1997.
I would ask the gentleman, is that right?
Mr. COBURN. I will answer when I have my own time, because I am not
sure I am going to get to answer the way I want to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, the gentleman can. I just wanted to
make sure I understood it.
Mr. COBURN. Wonderful.
Mr. Chairman, what the American people are looking for from this body
is honesty, integrity, and truthfulness about what our situation is. We
can have wonderful debates about where our priorities should be, but
the fact is that we did have an agreement. I did not happen to vote for
the 1997 budget agreement, but we did have an agreement with this
President, with the Congress of the United States, that said we are
going to live within this agreement.
What the American people are wondering is are we really going to do
it, or is Washington going to continue to do what it has done the last
40 years, to say one thing and do something completely other, and at
the same time spend their pension money?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will take back my time.
I would only make one edit. When the gentleman said ``Washington,''
read for that, ``The Republican Congress.'' That is what he means by
``Washington,'' because the Republicans control the House and control
the Senate.
So my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, says the issue is, is this
Republican-controlled Congress going to live up to this Republican
accomplishment of 1997. And I think the answer is, they are looking for
a way not to. He may not like the implications of what he said, but
that is what he said.
He said, here is the issue, is this Republican Congress willing to
live up to this Republican 1997 budget act. And I think here is the
problem with the American people.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have been here too long
to be proud. I will accept second chances.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say I think the issue is in fact, and I am
not as sure as the gentleman as to what the American people think, but
I think the American people may be conflicted.
I think they may have a preference, on the one hand, for a low level
of overall spending, and on the other hand, for particular spending
programs that add up to more than the overall level. That is, I think
the American people may be in a position where they favor a whole that
is smaller than the sum of the parts they favor, and that is what we
have to grapple with.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a comment
about the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, and this is with
regard to the caps, and I say this with all sincerity.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I knew Lincoln was a pretty smart fellow,
but if the guy that was around in 1865 has made a comment about 1997,
he was
[[Page 10838]]
even smarter than I thought. But go ahead.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, here is what I think he would say, that
he would restate his comment that the foolish and the dead alone never
change their minds.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I guess he would say that, but I do not
know why.
If the gentleman is saying, ``change your mind,'' okay, but let us be
clear what ``change your mind'' means. If it means he admits that this
great accomplishment of 1997, this Balanced Budget Act that has been
the basis for so much that they have taken credit for, they are really
ready to throw it over the side, I do not blame the Members. I never
liked it in the first place.
The one thing the Members are not entitled to do is to express
surprise at the entirely foreseeable consequences of their action. They
are not entitled, having done it in 1997 and taken credit for it in the
1998 election, to throw it over the side and say, what do you guys
think this is, term limits, a promise one makes and then forgets about?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, agriculture is very important to me. I am a farmer.
Agriculture has been shortchanged. We need to pay attention to
agriculture and the survival of the family farm as other countries
protect and subsidize their farmers.
But I think that is one reason that this is the first of the
appropriation bills where we are faced with the decision of
overspending. Are we going to start inching our way into a situation
where we have to break our word on keeping our commitment on the caps
that we set in 1997.
Just to make it clear, synonymous with sticking to the caps under the
current CBO projections is whether or not we spend the social security
trust fund surpluses to accommodate that extra spending.
For most every year in the last 40 years, we have used the social
security surpluses to mask the deficit; in other words, we have spent
the social security surpluses for other government programs. A lot of
people here say, well, do not worry about it, somehow social security
is going to take care of itself.
I disagree. The easy step, the easiest possible thing that we can do,
is say that we are going to stop spending the social security surpluses
for other government programs. That is a baby step. That is so easy
compared to the program changes that are going to have to be
implemented to change social security so it can stay solvent.
So when we are faced with a situation that we inch our way into
overspending and using Social Security surpluses on this important
Agricultural budget, which is so difficult for so many of us to vote
against, we set the pattern. Then the next budget that is also
important, we are faced with more overspending. Then a situation at the
end is that we cannot possibly stay within our caps and not spend the
social security surpluses.
Look, if the spending is so important, have the guts, the fortitude,
to say, we are going to increase taxes to accommodate this kind of
spending. Do not say, we are simply going to reach under the table,
take the social security surpluses that are coming in because current
workers are being overtaxed, and use that money, because few will
notice the abuse. Nobody is going to see it or realize it until it runs
out of money.
We have ground this country into a $5.5 trillion debt. We are
increasing that debt on a daily basis. Sometime we are going to have to
face up to the fact that we are transferring our shortsighted desire
for more overspending to our kids and our grandkids and future
generations.
Not only will they be asked to come up with additional income taxes
but also social security taxes to pay for our overindulgence. I just
give the Members a couple of situations. Germany did not pay attention
to this early on, and now they are spending almost 50 percent of their
wages in taxes to accommodate their senior retirement program.
I am very concerned that we are going down, if you will, the primrose
path of thinking all of these expenditures are necessary and important.
I would just like to encourage my colleagues to face up to the
consequences. If spending is so important, let us increase taxes to
accommodate that spending. Let us reduce other expenditures to
accommodate that spending. But let us keep our promise and not spend
social security surpluses.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to remind my colleagues that we are
actually debating an amendment. Now, we have heard speeches here on
social security, we have gotten into Abraham Lincoln's life, and
everything else. But I become increasingly angered as I see the
irresponsibility of the majority party inside this institution.
I am a loyal Member of this House, and I am rarely as partisan as
some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. But I am going to get
partisan now, because a bill that I have major responsibility for is
being held up on this floor because of disarray inside the Republican
Party. Who it is hurting is the farmers across this country.
Mr. Chairman, I will not yield until I finish my statement to any
Member on the other side of the aisle, since they are the reason for
the continuing delay here today.
I have served in this Congress now for 9 terms and I have the highest
respect for the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), who has worked under enormous pressures of various
types as we have moved this bill to the floor, the first appropriation
bill to arrive on the floor, and rightly so for rural America, because
no sector of this country is hurting more than rural America today.
But as I look at the record of the Republican Congress during my
tenure over the last several years, last year they could not clear a
bill to assist rural America. We had to end up with that omnibus
atrocity at the end of the year where we threw in some help for rural
America, because they could not deal with their appropriation bills on
time.
And then just last week, 6 months late, they appropriated more money
under an emergency basis to try to help rural America, as well as
defense and Kosovo and Hurricane Mitch victims and all of the rest.
They did not do it under regular order. The only part of the bill that
they required to be offset for budget purposes was the agriculture
piece, the part that affected citizens of the United States of America
who have paid taxes.
Now today I come down here, and what do I see? I see delay by a
Member who is not up for reelection, let us put the cards right on the
table; who has, according to what we have been told, between 100 and
200 amendments to an agriculture bill which is very important to rural
America. So what I see today are delay tactics.
I do not understand what is going on on the Republican side of the
aisle. They can check my whole career, I probably have not used the
word ``Republican'' in speeches on the floor 10 times in 17 years, but
I am sick of it and what they are doing on agriculture. They are
holding up our bill.
I would just beg of the leadership, I will say to the leadership of
their side of the aisle who voted with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn), if this is any indication of what is about to happen over the
next several days as we string this agony out and they make rural
America wait again, I would just say, why do they not go back into
their own little caucus and figure out what they are really for,
because we have worked very hard for several months to produce this
bill, and the people of America, particularly rural America, are
waiting, and they are continuing to delay.
I will specifically say to their leadership, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), those who voted with
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), why are they doing this?
There are over 100 to 200 more amendments yet to come, and they are
going to delay this bill?
[[Page 10839]]
If these Members want a vote on social security, bring up a social
security bill. They are in the majority. They can do anything they
want. But why do they continue to take it out of the hide of rural
America?
I have a real problem here. I would just beg of the leadership to
treat their committee chairs with respect, bring their bills to the
floor in regular order, and do not nitpick us to death.
Thank God we are not the other body. We are not supposed to have
filibusters here. We are supposed to move the people's business. I am
here to do that as a Democrat, and I wish they were here to do that as
Republicans.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that their remarks are to be
directed to the Chair, not to other persons.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would like to say that I have tremendous respect for the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who just spoke. I would like to
think that later she will regret some of the intensity that she feels,
because this is the first day of a debate on the agriculture
appropriations bill.
We have a right, even in the majority, to amend majority bills, just
as the minority has a right to offer amendments to these bills. That is
what we are doing, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) in my
judgment, is showing a lot of courage and integrity.
I was sitting in my office and I was thinking, he is speaking the
truth. We all need to have this dialogue, and if Members disagree with
it, they disagree with it.
The fact is, when we set the 302(b) allocations, we decided to give
more to agriculture; we decided to give a lot more to defense; and,
obviously, we decided to give less to Labor and Health and Human
Services. These departments are going to receive a $10.7 billion cut.
We also decided to give less to HUD. That department is also going to
receive a significant cut.
What we are saying is that when we increase agriculture spending, the
only way we can do this is by cutting other departments. And we do not
want that.
What I am saying is that I will vote for appropriations bills that do
not increase spending and that stay within the caps.
{time} 1700
I understand that the chairman can say we are staying within the cap,
because we could triple the agriculture budget. It is the first budget,
and we could spend all the 302(b) allocation on agriculture and still
not be above the cap.
But we have to recognize that this budget is going to affect all the
other budgets that follow. That is why I am on the floor to say I will
vote against this budget, not because I dislike farmers, but because I
do not like the bureaucracy in the Agriculture Department.
I have a hard time understanding why we need over 95,000 employees in
the Agriculture Department and less than 10,000 in HUD. I have a hard
time understanding why we have over 85,000 contract employees working
in the Agriculture Department.
I do not think they help farmers as much as some of the other things
we do. We have a gigantic department that, in my judgment, makes HUD
look efficient.
As a Member of Congress, I think I have a right to come here, speak
on the amendment that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has
offered, and vote for it with pride.
I would gladly take credit for the balanced budget agreement, but I
cannot take credit because a lot of people share in that credit. That
agreement is one of the reasons why I think our country is doing as
well as it is today.
Our challenge is we have a gigantic surplus, and we simply do not
know how to deal with the surplus, so we want to spend it and make
government bigger and bigger and bigger.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding to me.
Everybody said what my intention was, but they never asked me exactly
what my intention was. The reason for the number of amendments that
have been offered is because the real debate is about what we are going
to do with all this money that we are spending.
As a Member of this body, I think, and I think the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will agree, that I was just as obstructive in my
desire to not spend wasteful money last year and the year before and
the year before and the year before. I have not changed at all. I have
been this independent ever since I have been up here, because I believe
that we have an obligation to not spend one additional dollar that we
do not have to.
What I hear throughout the whole body is that we cannot. We cannot be
better. We cannot get better. We cannot be more efficient. That the
product of the appropriation process is the best that it can be.
We all have an equal vote in here in terms of what we think and how
we get a vote on certain issues. I, quite frankly, think that there are
a lot of areas in this appropriation bill that we can trim spending,
that will help us have money for Labor-HHS, Commerce, Justice and
State, that will not have one effect on our farmers. Do my colleagues
know what? Most of my farmers think so, too.
So it is not a matter of just obstructing the process, it is a matter
of reestablishing confidence within this body with the American people
that we said we were going to hold spending down, that we were not
going to waste money, and that in fact it is really true that, if we
spend $1 that we do not need to, we are stealing the future from our
children.
So the debate is about Social Security because the money that we are
going to end up spending is going to come from the Social Security
surplus that, guess what, our children are going to have to pay back.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if I could, see if we cannot back out
of the trees and look at the forest a little bit. I appreciate the
comments earlier by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I think that
he had it exactly right.
One of my favorite movies is ``Indiana Jones.'' In the movie, his
father is killed, and they are drinking from the silver chalice. If
Indiana Jones picks the right chalice to drink from, his father will
live. If he picks the wrong one, he will die.
In one of the moving lines of the movie, the bad guy says to Indiana
Jones, ``Indiana Jones, it is time for you to decide what you
believe.''
I think what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is trying to do
is to force that question on this party, the Republicans, to decide
what we believe. The gentleman from Massachusetts had it exactly right.
I will tell my colleagues that, as one Republican, I am not ashamed
of what we did in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. It is the best
thing we have done since I have been here, and I am proud of that and
will gladly defend it to my dying day. But are we all willing to do
that?
What we have really is a logjam of ideals that are coming together in
this first appropriation bill. The ideals are saving Social Security
and the surplus, balancing the budget, and spending more money.
I would have bet my last dollar that several years ago, had my
colleagues asked me a question, if we had a logjam of those three
ideals, which one would win, I would have bet my last dollar that
Social Security would trump all the others. But what we are finding
evident in this process is that is not true. Spending trumps everything
else in this body. Big spending trumps everything, including Social
Security.
Again, let us back out of the woods and look at the forest. What we
have here is the first of 13 bills, checks that the Congress writes to
fund all the discretionary spending in the budget, about $600 billion.
It may be a little bit more than that. This is the first one.
What the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has had the nerve and
the
[[Page 10840]]
courage to do is take the high ground and try to see if we can figure
out where the end of this road is going to be.
I will tell my colleagues where the end of the road is. It is a box
canyon. It is a dead end. That is where we are headed.
An old Chinese proverb says, ``The longest journey begins with the
first step.'' This is the first step, and it is a step in the wrong
direction. If we continue down this path, we will end up with another
disaster like we had at the end of the last Congress.
So what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is doing, he is not
railing against agriculture, he is railing against this process. Sure,
my colleagues are right, this is a problem within the Republican
conference; and leadership is what is needed.
We need to talk about what is the end game, not agriculture. What is
the end game? Where are we going? Are we going to end up with the same
disaster that we had last year, where we end up spending billions of
dollars above the budget caps, $17 billion if we freeze all spending
right now? That is the point that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) is trying to make.
I was always taught, say what you mean and mean what you say. Now say
what you mean is a communication issue; and I hear that wherever I go,
speaking across the country on behalf of the Republican Party: What is
the problem with your communication?
One of the problems is we do not say what we mean. We are trying to
do a better job of that. Do my colleagues know what we are saying? We
are the party that wants to save Social Security first, not 62 percent
of the surplus, as the President said from that lectern not long ago,
but 100 percent.
Mean what you say is an integrity issue. That is what this issue is
about. It is an integrity issue of this party. Because if my colleagues
are going to ask me to go around the country and hail the Republican
Party and say we are the party that is to save Social Security first,
then my colleagues better mean what they say, because I want to mean
what I say. If we do not mean what we say, then I am going to quit
saying it.
That is the issue, are we going to mean what we say when we say we
are going to save Social Security first? This bill is the first test on
that issue.
Again, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has had the foresight
and the courage to take the high ground and look ahead and say, if we
continue down this path, we have a disaster coming in the form of VA-
HUD and Labor-HHS that none of my colleagues will vote for under the
302(b) allocations. Not one of my colleagues will vote for a $4 billion
cut in VA-HUD and $5 billion cut in Labor-HHS. Not one of my colleagues
will vote for it, not one.
So that is the problem. It is a leadership issue. I agree with the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). It is a leadership issue that we
need to deal with. I will tell my colleagues that this was our last
resort, was to come to the House floor, because we hit dead end after
dead end in trying to carry on this family discussion inside our own
house.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to come and speak on this bill today.
As I was over in my office and watching it, I was thinking I am sure my
farmers are out in the field this afternoon, and I hope they are,
working, and not seeing what was going on that would have such a
dramatic impact on their lives.
We are here in an air conditioned building and, as my friend the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) said who just spoke from the
majority side, we are in an air-conditioned building, well-lighted and
comfortable; and they are out in hot fields, their lives on the line.
As he said, and he put it correctly, we are having a family fight.
I am not going to get in the middle of this family fight. I am going
to let my colleagues all fight it out. But I hope my colleagues will
settle it, because this bill has a significant impact on the farmers in
my State and the farmers all across this country.
Yes, there are other bills to come that will affect the children. But
this bill does, too, because it affects the quality of family life.
I am proud to be a Member of the United States Congress. I am not
proud when we bring our dirty laundry to the floor. There is nothing
wrong with offering amendments. I have no problem with that. I will
stay here all night and tomorrow morning, all day tomorrow. But we
ought to know where we want to get to. It ought to be about getting to
a destination. It ought to be about making it better rather than just
to stop the process, to make a point. That is not what legislation is
all about.
I am only in my second term in Congress. I served 10 years in the
General Assembly in my State. I understood stalling tactics, but it
ought not to be about that. It ought to be about making it better and
providing a better opportunity for people in America and specifically
about our family farmers, because they are hurting.
Our small farmers are going out of business. They are going broke. I
have had farmers tell me, and I met with bankers, I met with someone
earlier today and they said to me, ``If you do not have crop insurance,
I will not make a loan. If you do not get a program in place, we are
going to quit lending money.''
If that should happen, I pray to God it does not, but if that should
happen, it will not happen with my vote. I trust the majority party
will come to their senses and make sure it does not happen with their
vote either, because we have been fortunate in America, we have been
blessed, as no other country in the world, to have a bountiful food
supply.
Oh, sure, there are children that do not have as much food as they
should have; but over the years we have tried to do a good job. We have
not done as much as we should to make sure that they are fed with the
child nutrition program and other programs like that.
But, Mr. Chairman, we have a job to do. We are paid to do it. So let
us get on and pass this bill and get on to the other appropriations
bills and get the people's business done.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wrote down a few different thoughts here that we have
all heard. Rome was not built in a day. The first step is the hardest
step. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) just mentioned the
Chinese proverb, which was the longest journey begins with the first
step. Do not do tomorrow what you can do today. To me, this is what the
amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is all about.
As has already been stated numerous times on the House floor, we have
a train wreck coming unless we go out and basically reroute this little
train. So it is a family fight. It is an internal discussion. But it is
a conversation that really has to take place now because the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) mentioned the 302(b) numbers. There
is no way we are going to cut $3 billion from VA-HUD. There is no way
we are going to cut $5 billion from Labor-HHS. If we are going to get
ahead of this curve, we have simply got to do it now.
So I would just commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I
would say that farmers that I talk to are the most straightforward
people in the world. What we are dealing with, again, goes back to what
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) was talking about in terms of
the word ``integrity''. What we have is a budget plan that cannot work.
When we talk about this idea of a surplus, last year we borrowed $100
billion from Social Security to give us a surplus of about $70 billion.
Most folks I talk to say basically we are still $30 billion in the hole
if that is the math.
A family, if one had to go out and borrow against one's retirement
reserves to put gas in the car and food on the table, one would say
that family was not running a surplus. In the business world, if one
borrowed against one's pension fund assets to pay for the current
operation of the company, one would go to jail. That is how we are
getting to this surplus.
[[Page 10841]]
So we are building on very shaky ground. That is what the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is trying to get us away from with this
particular amendment.
{time} 1715
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back and make a couple of
points. This amendment is about cutting a 9 percent increase in an
office that is full of computers for an Office of Public Information
for the Department of Agriculture. And here we have people saying that
we have to have 9 percent when every other aspect of our economy is not
seeing any kind of increases near that.
It is sacrosanct because of what has to continue; the way we used to
do it, we always have to do it that way in the future. It is a process
that needs to be shaken up.
I would love to have been in a room with our Founding Fathers,
because while we talk about majority-minority parties, I am sure they
did not talk about majority-minority parties. They talked about doing
what was best for this country regardless of what an individual's party
says.
It should be what is best for our districts, not what is good for our
party. The Founding Fathers never once rationalized getting in power
and having control so they could stay in power. What they said was, we
are going to put this Union together and we are going to make it work
because the people are going to have the integrity to do what is best
for their constituents and they are going to have the vision to make
sure that they do not make a short-run choice that sacrifices the long-
run choice.
These amendments are about sacrificing the short run so we secure a
future for our children in the long run. It is not about which party
controls. It is a matter of living up to our responsibility to secure a
future for our children. And, quite frankly, I am not sure this body is
up to it, because I think the body is more interested in power politics
than principle. I find that evident as we have had the debate today.
So I would yield back to the gentleman and thank him for the
additional time, and I would reemphasize that this is a debate about
cutting a 9 percent increase out of the Office of Information for the
Department of Agriculture, and that will not impact one farmer.
I would rather see this same money moved and go to our farmers.
It is not about not having enough money for our farmers; it is about
having way too much bureaucracy and not having the guts to change it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First off, I think it is important that we know just exactly what the
proposed increased spending is for. And I have great respect for the
gentleman from Oklahoma, I do not believe he intends to misspeak, but
this is an attempt to do something that many of us have been attempting
to do since 1992, and that is bring the USDA into the next century
technologically. And that is what these computers are all about. It is
to allow our farmers to be served better by less people.
And that is what the cuts that are being proposed are all about, and
that is why some of us have opposed these cuts.
But let me make a couple of other observations. If we want to save
Social Security, let us bring a Social Security bill to the floor of
the House from the Committee on Ways and Means.
Now, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith), on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) have
brought bills and ideals but not to the floor. This is the wrong time
for us to be picking on an agricultural bill, particularly making cuts
that do just the opposite of what the gentleman from Oklahoma wants to
do, in my opinion.
But the gentleman is correct in many of the observations that he
makes with his amendments today. We have no appropriations strategy,
``we'' meaning this body, unless those who voted for the majority's
budget are prepared to cut $6 billion from the Veterans Administration
and HUD, unless they are willing to cut $11 billion in Labor HHS,
unless they are willing to cut 8 percent in Commerce, State, Justice,
and the energy and water bills, and unless they are willing to cut 20
percent from the Interior and Foreign Operations.
Now, I did not vote for that budget, because I am not willing to make
those kinds of cuts in those areas, because I believe it would be
counterproductive, and I am perfectly willing to say what I mean. But I
did vote for the Blue Dog budget, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) did also, which suggested that in the areas of agriculture,
defense, education, health and veterans we might need to spend a little
bit more on those areas, subject to the scrutiny of this body, which is
perfectly okay for any Member in this body to challenge the Committee
on Appropriations at any time on anything we are doing, and I do not
begrudge the gentleman for doing that.
We also, in our amendment, saved Social Security, and I would submit
we did it really, and the gentleman agrees because he voted for it. We
also provided for a 25 percent tax cut, or using 25 percent of the on-
budget for cutting taxes. But we also recognized there was going to be
a need for additional spending, and we are proving it today. And this
is an area in which when I say ``we,'' the leadership of this House
needs to look at the train wreck that they are leading us down by the
proposed 302(b) allocations.
The gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from Ohio are doing
what they were told to do. They were given a mark in the budget. This
budget passed by a majority vote of this body. Therefore, that means a
majority must support it.
Well, if it means a majority do not wish to spend that which has been
designated for agriculture, vote against it. Cut the agriculture bill.
Vote to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma, in which he
will cut the very technology that we need in order to make the
efficiencies to do more work with less people. That is what this is all
about.
I know the gentleman has not looked into it. I have spent since 1992.
I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry that started us down the road of
USDA reorganization, and I have been fought every step of the way by
the bureaucracy. We have made some substantial improvements and
changes, and one of the things that we must do now is provide our
people with the technology that they need in order that they might do
that which they are criticized every day for doing.
Secretary Glickman has been criticized day after day after day
because he has not been able to deliver that which our farmers expect.
Part of the reason he has been criticized is we have not given him the
tools to use. So before we start blindly making amendments and trying
to make points, let me just say this agricultural function is within
the budget that passed by a majority of this House.
It does not meet the criteria of the Blue Dogs. Those who supported
us, which was a majority on my side of the aisle and 26 on that side of
the aisle, said, no, we cannot do that, we have some other needs, and
we are willing to stand up and be counted for those needs in a very
responsible way.
But if we truly want to save Social Security, let us bring a Social
Security bill to this floor and do it tomorrow. Then we will have an
honest debate about how we can best do it, not on an agricultural bill.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I would just
like to make two points.
One is that for those who have mentioned in the debate that the
farmers are waiting in the fields for us to resolve this issue, I would
remind them that this bill does not become law for at least 4 months,
regardless of how long this debate goes on. So no one is going to be
harmed by this debate except perhaps the patience of the Members who
are participating in it or
[[Page 10842]]
whose constituents are listening to it back home.
So this is not going to cause any breakdown in USDA or in the
delivery of services or anything else. This is next year's
appropriations bill.
The second thing is, the gentleman from Oklahoma has every right to
offer these amendments, but that does not mean we have to debate every
one of them. This could go on for a long, long time. Why do we not just
agree that he has his right to bring the amendments and let us vote
them down?
The committee, the subcommittee, went through the process according
to Hoyle. We did the right thing. Let us just vote these amendments
down. If we debate every amendment, it could be 4 months before we
complete.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but I think it is wonderful
that we can be in this position. When I was running for Congress in
1996, the major theme was that the Congress ought to live within its
own means, it ought not to spend more money than it takes in. And I am
proud of the U.S. Congress for what they have done in the past few
years to get us there.
I know the gentleman from Oklahoma played an integral role in that,
and I respect his right to bring these amendments. But I want to tell
the gentleman that we have to live within these budget caps that we
have imposed upon ourselves, or we are going to have a train wreck.
Now, I did not happen to vote for the budget that we are operating
under right now. Like the gentleman from Texas, I voted for the Blue
Dog budget, as did the gentleman from Oklahoma. And I think the major
difference between the two was that we recognized, as Blue Dogs, that
we could not do the cuts quite as deeply as were shown in the budget
that came out of the majority of this House.
So, obviously, that Blue Dog budget went down, and now we are living
within the constraints of the one that we have. And as my colleagues
know, the main difference in those was the depth of the tax cuts.
So I just wanted to remind the gentleman from Oklahoma that, as I
have listened to this discussion today, much of it has focused on
senior citizens and the issue of Social Security. What has not been
mentioned today is the fact that much of this bill that we are debating
right now is of direct benefit to senior citizens. Actually, only 12 or
13 billion goes directly into the farm programs, the balance goes into
WIC and some other programs that are directed at senior citizens.
Our rural housing programs, particularly the multifamily housing and
rental assistance programs are heavily oriented towards seniors. We
have housing repair loans and grants that help senior citizens fix
their homes and rentals and repair handicapped access. Our community
facility loans and grants build community centers that are used by all
age groups in rural America.
A significant part of our research in this bill has gone for the
elderly nutrition. This bill supports several feeding programs for
senior citizens in urban and rural areas. This bill also supports
people, the computers, the buildings and all other things necessary to
make these programs work.
Now, I have spent most of my life in agriculture, and I go in and out
of the FSA office regularly; and we have cut the staff in those
offices, we have consolidated those offices to the point where we are
doing a disservice to our farmers now all across this Nation. And the
only way for us to be able to continue to sustain that is with
technology. I am embarrassed when I go in and see some of the computers
that they are using.
So I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment, and I certainly am
thankful to the gentleman from Oklahoma for continuing this debate.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I thought one of the most interesting talks was given
by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). This is not about
agriculture today, as far as what the gentleman is doing. It is about
spending and it is about the future and, in the long run, farmers are
going to be better.
I grew up in a little town called Shelbina, Missouri, which had a
population of 2,113 folk, and I want to tell my colleagues that most of
my friends were farmers, and most of them are having to have second and
third jobs just to hang on to their farms. And I understand that. But
when I look at this body and the argument, not just with our party, but
with the other party as well, on total spending for the future, it is
important.
Most of us could live within the budget caps, even national security.
We could live under the budget caps set with national security if we
did not have the Somalia extension, which cost billions; Haiti cost
billions; Bosnia has cost $16 billion so far, and that is not even next
year; Kosovo has already cost $15 billion; going to Iraq four times
cost billions of dollars.
And all of this money, every penny of this, we could put in farms, we
could put in Social Security, and we could do all the other things we
want to. But this White House has got us in folly all over this planet,
costing billions of dollars. So there is spending there.
I also look at the different things that we fight, and not just
agriculture. Take a look at the balanced budget process. If I had my
way I would do away with the budget process, and I think the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would too, and I would just go with an
appropriations bill.
I would get rid of the authorization, and I would reduce the entire
size of government so that we do not have to tax farmers so much, so
that neither a State nor local nor Federal tax means more than 25
percent. That would help farmers.
{time} 1730
Look at the Endangered Species Act. Look at how that hurts farmers.
Increased taxes hurt farmers. All of these things that we talk about on
this floor on almost all the bills, whether it is defense or
environment or other things, affect farmers negatively.
The supplemental we passed, we passed a pretty good bill out of the
House. It was clean but it went to the other body and it was a disaster
coming back here. And that took money out from the things that we are
trying to do in medical research and all the other things.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas talked about this
office and this amendment. I want to get back to it for a minute.
I just want the American people to know, in 1964 there were 3.2
million farms in this country and there were 108,000 agricultural
employees working for the U.S. Government. In 1997 there were 40
percent fewer farms, 1.9 million, and there were 107,000 Department of
Agriculture employees plus 82,000 contract employees that did not exist
in 1964.
So the question that I am wanting to raise, the philosophical
question is why can we not get the government smaller if we have fewer
farmers, they are more efficient, they are doing better, and send more
of the money that we have for agriculture to the farmers? How is it
that we cannot do that? We can do that. It is that we choose not to do
it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I appreciate focusing, as the gentleman did, on the fundamental issue
here. And I think we do have a question as to the adequacy of the caps.
The gentleman from California said we could live under the cap, even
for national security, and he said if it were not for Somalia, Haiti,
Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq.
My point to the gentleman is this: Kosovo came after, but the other
military efforts he mentioned all preceded
[[Page 10843]]
the cap. The cap was 1997. So if the gentleman says we could have lived
under the cap except for Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Iraq, then he must
be saying, seriously, that the cap was too low. Because those four
items which he said make it impossible to live under the cap, four of
the five predate the cap.
So I ask the gentleman, does he still say the cap was adequate in
1997?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, what I would say to the gentleman is
this. The Joint Chiefs, for example, in defense said that we need $150
billion, that is an additional $22 billion a year just to pay for
defense, and that is because of all of those deployments that have
happened.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue, I understand that. But my point to the gentleman is we can
differ about that, although I hope we can work together to reduce some
of these excessive commitments. But I would say to the gentleman this:
Most of those things happened before my colleagues voted for the cap.
So I am simply saying it is impossible logically to say both that these
interventions make the cap unrealistic and to have voted for the cap,
because the cap came after most of those interventions.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the
gentleman is missing the point. Even though the cap came afterwards,
those other events preceded it and all of those bills were carried on
down the line.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue to yield, yes. Then why did my colleague vote for the cap? I
agree that because the events preceded it, the cap came after it. That
I agree to.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again it is about
spending. And I would say, look at www.dsausa.org. That is the Democrat
Socialists of America. And under that are 58 of the members in this
body.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue to yield, would he tell me what that remotely has to do with
anything?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They want increased spending. They want increased
government control. They want increased taxes. They want to cut defense
by 50 percent. And every single one of those hurts farmers.
So this is about spending. And they in the minority want to increase
spending. They want to increase taxes. They want to increase government
control. All of those things hurt farmers.
So this bill and this debate is good, because it is not about
agriculture. It is about a principle of spending and taxes and whether
Congress is putting us in the hole for future generations or not.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that they are to refrain from
characterizing the actions of the other body.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, last Sunday afternoon I spent 3 hours at the Emmanuel
American Lutheran Church in rural Fulda in Minnesota. The Fulda
Ministerium had organized a service to minister to the anguish of the
farm community. The local Catholic priest and several ministers
participated.
Farm families are struggling to decide if they can continue to farm.
Business families are wondering if their businesses will survive.
Churches are wondering if they will survive. Teachers are wondering if
their schools will stay open in the small communities in rural America.
As I sat in the service, I looked up at the wall in the front of the
sanctuary and I noticed that the Ten Commandments were there. The
Seventh Commandment states, ``Thou shalt not steal.'' The Seventh
Commandment, which states, ``Thou shalt not steal,'' had a very strange
and eerie relevance to the meeting that afternoon.
What is happening is this country has a cheap food policy and we have
been stealing from America's farm families for decades. We are driving,
by our national cheap food policy, thousands of families from the farms
of America every year.
This year we are struggling with the first appropriations bill,
Agriculture Appropriations. It is a humble bill. From my reading of the
approach that we are taking, there is no real policy in this bill. We
are not making progress. And I fear that the American farmers are
getting rolled again in fiscal 2000. Their bill comes up first, and
there is all this debate about whether their bill is too high.
Well, I can assure my friend from Oklahoma that we are not investing
enough in agriculture. It is far from the truth. And the 100,000
employees he is talking about at the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
they are not dealing with our agricultural programs. Almost all of them
are dealing with nutrition and Forest Service and other programs. It is
not agriculture.
Let us quit treating our farmers like dirt. We expect them to farm in
the dirt, but they deserve to be treated with dignity. I do not see any
progress in this series of amendments. We are squandering hours of
floor time on a frivolous debate over these amendments.
What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, we need to recognize the fact that,
as we move through this appropriations process, one appropriations bill
after another is going to exceed the caps. The Agriculture
Appropriations bill is probably the one that is considered easiest to
pass without protracted debate over whether we should not be spending
more.
Tragically, when the end of the year comes and we have the new CBO
budget baseline and the pressure is there for other programs, we will
start to find ways to explode the caps. I think all of us know that.
But for agriculture, no, there is no new program. There is no crop
insurance reform for fiscal year 2000. We are not increasing the loan
rates for fiscal 2000. We are not providing additional money for new
and beginning farmers in fiscal 2000. We are not investing in our rural
communities for fiscal 2000 to a greater degree.
We have a static program. We are regressing for America's rural
communities in fiscal 2000. And I think to blame the White House, to
blame this and to blame that, is absolutely wrong. It is asinine. We
need to look at ourselves and blame ourselves for the fact we are not
doing justice to America's farm families.
I urge that we defeat this amendment and that we move on to consider
the substance of this bill so that we no longer are insulting rural
America.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 177, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 154]
AYES--239
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
[[Page 10844]]
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inslee
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Northup
Norwood
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--177
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bateman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Callahan
Canady
Capps
Carson
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Spence
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3
Kaptur
Kucinich
Menendez
NOT VOTING--14
Brown (CA)
Clay
Graham
Hinojosa
Holden
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Millender-McDonald
Nadler
Ortiz
Pallone
Reyes
Rothman
Smith (TX)
{time} 1800
Mr. ROEMER and Mr. STRICKLAND changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. BAIRD, Ms. SANCHEZ, Ms. VELAZQUEZ and
Messrs. MOAKLEY, NEAL of Massachusetts, DEUTSCH and GREEN of Texas
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I had planned on offering an amendment that would have
attempted to strike funding for the Office of the Secretary as well as
other offices and programs within USDA in an attempt to provide some
$40 million for onion and apple farmers in the State of New York that
were severely struck by bad weather, a disaster-type of problem that
they had last year.
We, our good Committee on Agriculture, adopted a $5.9 billion
emergency relief measure. Our farmers still have yet to see one dollar
of that, and I wanted to mention as we are considering this major
agriculture measure, I wanted to make my colleagues aware of the poor
manner in which the United States Department of Agriculture has
addressed emergency relief for our farmers at a time when this Congress
passed a $5.9 billion emergency relief measure last October, and yet
very few of our farmers have received the kind of relief they are
entitled to. Moreover, when they go to seek relief, they find that the
crop insurance program leaves a lot to be desired.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture in the House and the Senate for taking a hard look at
revising that program.
So again I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind our
colleagues that while the USDA speaks highly of trying to do something
for the farmers, their programs leave a lot to be desired.
Mr. Chairman, I had planned on offering an amendment that would have
attempted to strike funding for the Office of the Secretary as well as
other offices and programs within the USDA in an attempt to provide $40
million for onion and apple farmers from New York.
However, in observance of comity as well as in recognition that such
amendment would not pass, I will not offer such an amendment.
Moreover, along with my colleague the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Walsh, we attempted to add $30 million to the recently approved
emergency supplemental for emergency assistance for our apple and onion
producers, but we were denied such relief.
However, the manner in which the Secretary of Agriculture and the
USDA has chosen to handle the current crisis which continues to plague
our onion producers from my congressional district in Orange County,
New York is wholly unsatisfactory.
One year ago this month, a devastating hail storm swept through the
Orange County region causing severe damage to vegetable crops and
adversely affected the production of our onion crops. When our farmers
went to their Federal crop insurance for assistance, they encountered a
system that hindered them, rather than helping them.
In the year that has followed since the last disaster, the United
States Department of Agriculture has utterly failed to act within their
mandate to secure and protect the interests of our nations farmers.
Many of our farmers face bankruptcy as a result of multi-year losses
and absolutely no assistance from USDA. In Orange County, our farmers
began planting for the new season, despite receiving no indemnities on
their claims. They could not afford to buy the seed and supplies needed
to ensure a bountiful growing season and many are struggling to keep
themselves afloat in the midst of the maelstrom that the Department has
unleashed upon them. We called upon the Secretary of Agriculture,
noting that unless the emergency funds so desperately needed were
released immediately, a number of them may not be able to survive.
Despite numerous pleas from a number of us in the Congress, the
Department has continued to follow a course of action that puts the
best interests of our farmers at risk. This bureaucratic blockade of
emergency funding stands in stark contract to the mission of the
Department of Agriculture and has succeeded only in prolonging the
suffering of our farmers, rather than assuaging it.
Once again, I renew my call to the Secretary to take every
appropriate action to ensure that these emergency disaster funds that
were appropriated by Congress back in October of last year are promptly
disbursed and I urge the Secretary to take whatever steps are necessary
to thoroughly revise the Federal Crop Insurance Program. We should not
continue programs that provide no substantive relief to those who look
to them for assistance. The time is now for the Secretary to begin such
a revision process.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10845]]
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to perhaps have the gentleman
from Florida on the other side talk about the schedule at this point,
or the Chair, whomever knows what the schedule is for this evening. We
understand that votes may be being rolled. If someone could clarify it
for us, what is happening here now?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio could move to strike the last
word and yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and would
yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman
of our full committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the plan is as follows:
The freshmen have a commitment between now and 8 o'clock at the
Holocaust Museum, and we will continue the debate, but we will roll the
votes that occur between now and 8 o'clock. Then at 8 o'clock we will
take the votes that have been postponed, and then after we have
completed that, a decision will be made whether to proceed further into
the evening and take votes or to proceed further into the evening and
roll the votes until tomorrow or to rise.
Mr. Chairman, one of those three options will be announced after the
votes at 8 o'clock.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
So, there will be no votes between now and approximately 8 p.m., but
debate will continue.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is correct.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the
clarification.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of the chief financial officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, including employment pursuant to the second sentence
of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
of which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109, $4,283,000.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration to carry out the
programs funded by this Act, $613,000.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
(including transfers of funds)
For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to
Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984
delegation of authority from the Administrator of General
Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C.
486, for programs and activities of the Department which are
included in this Act, and for the operation, maintenance, and
repair of Agriculture buildings, $140,364,000: Provided, That
in the event an agency within the Department should require
modification of space needs, the Secretary of Agriculture may
transfer a share of that agency's appropriation made
available by this Act to this appropriation, or may transfer
a share of this appropriation to that agency's appropriation,
but such transfers shall not exceed 5 percent of the funds
made available for space rental and related costs to or from
this account. In addition, for construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities as necessary to carry out the
programs of the Department, where not otherwise provided,
$26,000,000, to remain available until expended; making a
total appropriation of $166,364,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford:
Page 4, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $21,695,000)''.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very slight and modest
change within the whole of the $13-plus billion that will go to
agriculture. It deals specifically with the agricultural buildings and
facilities rental payments section, and what it does is it deceases by
a little over $21 million the specific agricultural buildings and
facilities rental payment section.
Now what this really gets at is, there is what they call the space
plan within the Department of Agriculture, and there are numerous
Department of Agriculture buildings throughout the country, and what we
do not have in schools across this country where we have actually
students in trailers is this kind of money being spent.
So this is to take out $21 million which seems to me to be a
Washington phenomenon, to go simply on planning on where buildings may
or may not be, where leases will or will not go next, and so this is a
420 percent increase in this one category of expenditure, and again it
is something that we do not see in the private sector. We do not see
somebody in the private sector spending $21 million planning on where
they are going to lease or sublease next, we do not see $21 billion
additional being spent on planning when it could go into real
buildings.
One of the choices that we will be having later this year is do we
spend this $21 million on planning, or do we put the money, for
instance, into education? This could actually buy books for the
classroom, it could actual buy computers for the classroom, it could
actually take people out of trailers.
In South Carolina we see trailers that actually house students. It
could take them out of those facilities and put them in a real
facility.
There is, for instance, if the choice right now is between this $21
million and, for instance, VA-HUD, would we rather spend the $21
million on veterans or would we rather spend the money, the $21
million, deciding where we are going to put bureaucrats in and around
Washington, D.C.?
That is all this amendment does. It is part of a much greater
context, and that is the context of what comes next. If we do not get
ahead of the curve on where Washington is spending money, we have a
train wreck coming this fall. There is no way this institution will cut
$5-plus billion out of Labor-HHS, there is no way this institution will
cut $3-plus billion out of VA-HUD, and the simple question before us
is:
Can we save this $21 million to go toward planning where bureaucrats
will be housed in Washington, or would we rather save that for these
greater purposes later on?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might inquire of the gentleman?
My understanding of this is that last year we spent $5 million in
this area and that we are increasing it to 21 million 600 and some odd
thousand dollars, and I profess to not understand the rationale behind
that, and I would like to know where this $16 million, how it is
actually going to be spent. Is that a contract with some outside firm
to help the Department of Agriculture better utilize its space or to
give them a strategic plan? Where is the $16 million going to be spent
over this next year, and how is it that we have a 420 percent increase?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
The gentleman is talking about the wrong section of the bill, because
it is not the building account his amendment goes after. His amendment
goes after the repairs and the rental accounts. These are contracts
that have been made by the Department of Agriculture in renovating some
of the older buildings that they own.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for
that explanation.
I would like to read from the committee print.
The Department's headquarters staff is presently housed in a four-
building, government-owned complex in downtown Washington and in leased
buildings in the metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, the USDA
initiated a plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to American
people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington.
To implement this goal, a strategy for efficient reallocation of
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern and
safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA strategic plan will
correct serious problems which USDA has faced in its facility program,
including inefficiencies of operating out of scattered lease facilities
[[Page 10846]]
and serious safety hazards which exist in the huge Agriculture South
Building.
During Fiscal 1998, the Beltsville office facility was completed.
This facility was constructed with funds appropriated to the
departments located on government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland.
Occupancy by USDA agencies began in 1998 and will be completed in 1999.
I guess my point is the same point that the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) had, is we are going to be trading classrooms
for children, we are going to be using Social Security money to
facilitate new buildings, new headquarters and new facilities for the
USDA, and that does not help farmers one bit that I can figure out. It
does help the people who work for the Department of Agriculture, but it
does not help the farmers, and it is my hope with this kind of increase
that we could take a look at that and perhaps trim that down or
eliminate it, or bring it down to something realistic because, in fact,
we do have a war that is costing $15 billion thus far, and we are going
to have to make some choices.
Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman like to respond to that?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is still in the wrong account.
That is an operations and maintenance account that we are talking about
for buildings that are in use by the Department of Agriculture, and it
is not planning money at all.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would again thank the gentleman for
responding to that. Again, I would stand by what I just read in the
committee print, which is how this money was labeled in terms of the
strategic space plan, and I guess I will just have to be satisfied.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. It is still the wrong number. We will be happy to show the
gentleman where it is.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to wait on the gentleman.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. He should not hold
his breath.
Mr. COBURN. Okay, again I would make the point.
The point is this: There is a significant increase in this section of
the bill.
{time} 1815
It is $21 million in a time when we are spending money on a war,
where we have made a commitment not to spend Social Security dollars to
run this government, and in an area that offers nothing for our
farmers.
Now, there is no question that I want more dollars to go to our
farmers. That is why we spent almost $12 billion in emergency
supplemental dollars last year for our farmers. That is why we advanced
the Freedom to Farm payment of $5 billion last year. That is why the
baseline for the agricultural bill was up $5 billion over last year,
because what was appropriated in the initial appropriations was $55
billion, almost $56 billion; and when we adjust that for the emergency
spending that raises the baseline, we come to $61 billion.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman this
question.
How would this strategic space plan in fact help a farmer?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, that was the question I asked.
Mr. SANFORD. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a question
that goes straight to the heart of the matter of do we really need to
spend this additional $21 million.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of this amendment. My
good friend from New Mexico, I know has worked very hard on this
legislation, and I know him to be a talented Member who works very
hard. He is from my neighboring State of New Mexico, and I applaud him
for his efforts. Indeed, I applaud him for his efforts throughout this
legislation because I think he does a good job for the agricultural
community, and this is an important piece of legislation which we are
considering here today.
I certainly support all of his efforts and all that he has done to
support the ag community.
However, I must rise in support of the amendment itself because of
the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It seems to me that there
is a proper time in the course of events when one can look at, how
could we improve the situation at the Department of Agriculture
buildings; how can we ensure their proper maintenance, how can we
indeed perhaps strategically plan their use of space; and there is a
time in the course of events when one can afford to do those kinds of
things.
But my belief is that at this particular moment, this particular
allocation of $21 million, a little over $21.5 million, comes at a
moment in time when we face some very, very difficult challenges,
challenges having to do with the confrontation we face in the Balkans,
the challenge we face in meeting our commitment to the American people
in other spending priorities, and particularly with regard to our
overall spending plan.
It seems to me what we have done is, we have placed individual
subcommittee chairmen, individual cardinals such as my good friend, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in a difficult position, because
right now, what we have done is, we have come to the floor to debate
one of the 13 appropriations bills which we need to debate and which I
agree we must, in fact, pass as we move forward; and I think we must
pass them as expeditiously and as quickly as possible because it is our
obligation to fund the government and it is our obligation to do that
in a timely fashion.
However, when we engage in that debate, we need to put it in a
context in which we look at the entire spending pattern of the
government.
I am now beginning to serve my fifth year in the Congress and to look
at our spending priorities, and I know that when I look back at how we
have handled the appropriations process in the last few years, the
commitments we made to the American people when we came here and the
way we have on, quite frankly, too many occasions allowed the process
to spin out of control and gotten ourselves in a position where late in
the game, late in the appropriations process, we cannot come to
agreement, and we wind up breaking our commitment as to how much money
we should spend to fund the government. We come back and we break our
word to the American people about what we are going to do in terms of
putting a tax burden on them.
I think we do not engage in this overall debate and have a plan and
have each bill come with a measured response that will fit into an
overall plan, and what we instead do, as it appears we are doing this
year, is we bank on the future, bank on a windfall, bank on extra
monies coming in and kind of put off to the side the financial
commitments we have made to live within our means or to put off until a
later date that debate; and all we do is create problems.
Mr. Chairman, I stood on this floor and watched us year after year
get into a confrontation with the President where he demands higher
spending and higher spending and higher spending, but we have put
ourselves in a crunch at the end of the legislative process where we
have, in the end, absolutely no choice but to agree with that. I, for
one, am very reluctant to ever again come to this floor, vote for a
spending bill which puts us in that position at the end of the year,
and then I have to go home and look my constituents in the eye and say,
yes, we did not live up to our word.
So I rise in reluctant support of the gentleman's amendment and in
reluctant opposition to my good friend from New Mexico on the bill,
because I think, on balance, he has done a good job on this bill. But
the bill is a part of a larger mosaic, it is a part of a 13-piece
puzzle.
[[Page 10847]]
Earlier in the day, I raised the question of how does this bill fit
into our overall commitment to the American people, because I simply
think we cannot break faith with the American people yet one more time,
on spending.
Mr. Chairman, we have all kinds of rules back here. We live within
these budget caps and we get to talking about caps and we get to
talking about the 1997 Budget Act. Quite frankly, the people back home
in my district say that discussion of budget caps is a lot of inside-
the-Beltway gobbledegook that they quite frankly do not understand.
However, they understand one thing. They understand fundamental
principles and they understand hypocrisy. And we have put out a
commitment to the American people that we will not break our word and
spend one penny of the Social Security surplus. We have laid that
marker down.
Now, that is not some big notion of budget caps, that is not some law
dictated by something we did 5 years ago; that is a very clearly
enunciated principle that says, we will not this year, once again, raid
Social Security. And yet I see us, because we have all 13 pieces of
this puzzle put into place, risking that commitment.
So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Coburn, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Shadegg was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I think one of the important things, and I have
discovered, thanks to the chairman and his committee staff, that we do
in fact have a drafting error on this amendment; and I am going to in a
minute ask for unanimous consent for that drafting error to be changed.
If it is not agreed to, then I will withdraw the amendment.
But I think the real question is, if we took a poll of farmers out
there on whether or not we ought to have a 420 percent increase in this
area, what would they say right now? They would not just say no; they
would be screaming up and down, saying no, because they know not one
penny of this money are they ever going to see, and they know it is
going to be spent in Washington.
I mean, that is what the committee print talks about, about space
needs and organizing the space for the bureaucracy that is in the
Department of Agriculture. So I think it would be an interesting
question as to what farmers who are actually out there struggling, what
cattlemen would say about a 420 percent increase for this area in the
Department of Agriculture.
It would be my hope that we would agree with what the farmers would
say. I know what the farmers from my district would say and I know what
the ranchers would say.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, on that very point, the back of the
envelope, what we are really looking at here, if the gentleman figures
he can get a good used tractor for about $20,000, we could just go out
and buy 1,000 tractors for farmers across this country rather than
spending the $20 million on space needs in Washington, D.C.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I applaud the
gentleman for being willing to withdraw the amendment if he cannot get
permission to fix the drafting error.
Again, I want to make my point, and that is the subcommittee
chairman, my colleague from New Mexico, my neighboring State, did do a
good job of trying to craft this legislation. I think the bigger
question is, how does it fit into a larger puzzle. That is the concern
I wanted to raise.
I would agree with the gentleman that I think the cattlemen in
Arizona and the farmers in Arizona, they are in dire shape and they do
need help. The least thing they are concerned about is space planning
in the Department of Agriculture, and they are more concerned about the
dollars we can get to them that would help them very much.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention in regard to this amendment,
which apparently has been withdrawn, it is just another example of
misfeasance on the other side of the aisle trying to write legislation
on the floor, not carefully thought through, never brought before the
committee, account numbers even wrong on the amendment that is
proposed.
Now, I think the gentleman in his heart probably is trying to do what
is right for the country, but again, the people that suffer from these
kinds of ill-advised amendments are the people in rural America; and if
the gentleman is not running for office again, that means the gentleman
is really not accountable to them for his actions here today. This is
just another example where we have been subjected to using our time as
we watch the gentleman try to rewrite and correct this amendment on the
floor.
At the same time, we have had more bankruptcies today across this
country. Some of the people that the gentleman really derides, that the
gentleman says work in these buildings, they are the people that
administer the programs that are trying to serve the farmers and the
ranchers of this country, and I have great respect for them. A lot of
them have given their lives over to the service of the American people.
They are the finest, most educated, most dedicated employees anywhere
in the world.
As I have traveled the world and I have looked at agriculture in
other places, and I have seen the faces of hungry people, and I have
watched nations unable to take the best information available to
humankind and make it available to those in the field, I understand how
important these people are to America. We not only feed our own
country, we feed the world. That does not happen by accident.
Frankly, I do not want people to have to work in dilapidated
circumstances with bad air-conditioning and bad heating systems and bad
ventilation. I want the best for America. I want the best for our
people to be able to serve the public, which is what we are here to do.
I really think that whoever advised the gentleman on this amendment
obviously was not studying the legislation very carefully, and I wish
the gentleman had come before our subcommittee. We have a fine
chairman. We have never had a better subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations than the Subcommittee on Agriculture. We would have been
open. We would have worked with the gentleman. The gentleman never did
that; the gentleman never made an appearance. I do not think he ever
sent us a letter.
I just want to put that on the Record.
Request for Modification Offered by Mr. Coburn to the Amendment Offered
by Mr. Sanford
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Sanford
amendment be changed from page 4, line 25, to page 5, line 11.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification offered by Mr. Coburn to the amendment offered
by Mr. Sanford:
Change the page and line numbers from ``Page 4, line 25''
to ``page 5, line 11''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
do so to try to get an indication of how many amendments we might be
considering here tonight. I have heard that there might be as many as
130 amendments offered just to filibuster this bill. If that is the
case, we are just going to rise and move on to other business.
So I wonder if we can get an idea from any of the Members that are
present if we are going to consider 130 amendments tonight, or whether
we
[[Page 10848]]
are going to consider 20. I would like to know where we are, because if
we are going to have to go all night long, I am going to object to
every opportunity that would slow down the process.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, as I stated during the
general debate and during the rule, to do everything I can to bring
this bill back in line with last year's spending and do it in such a
way that will not affect farmers, but will affect the overhead costs
that are oftentimes markedly inefficient.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that does not
respond to my question. Is the gentleman going to offer the 135
amendments that he advertised?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we
are $500,000 closer to that after the last amendment that the House
agreed to in terms of trimming. That means we only have $249,500,000 to
go. Some of those amendments are $60 and $70 million, some of them are
$200,000. When we achieve last year's freeze level, then I will stop
offering amendments.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for reserving
the right to object, and I wanted to state that to our knowledge, we
have been given a minimum of 20 amendments by the Clerk. We have been
told there are an additional 80 amendments that have been filed, and
there may be more of which we are not aware.
As the gentleman may know, we have been on the floor this afternoon
having to consider amendments we have never seen. In fact, on this
current amendment, it is unclear to us whether line 12 of page 5 is
included in the amendment or not.
So I would support the gentleman in his efforts to try to put some
rational process in place here. I realize we are in the minority, but I
think our Members have a right to be informed as to what is going on,
because they are coming up to me, and I would prefer to have a more
orderly process.
{time} 1830
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, for the other gentleman who was
talking about trying to bring us back to last year's budget, as we told
him in the initial discussions, there have been $6.4 billion below what
we spent in agriculture last year. This bill is way under. In fact, it
is 31 percent less than what was spent on agriculture last year.
I think that we met the mark, and these amendments are essentially a
filibuster tactic that are frivolous.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me say, I will not object to
allowing the gentlemen to correct their error in drafting their
amendment. However, I will object to any extensions of time or anything
that would delay the process.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just
wanted to ask, in the way of a parliamentary inquiry, when the
gentleman intends to amend his amendment, does he intend to also amend
the $166,364,000 figure in line 12 on page 5? Is that part of his
amendment?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. That is not part of the amendment. It is intended that
the conference could make that adjustment as a technical correction,
and we amended exactly what we intended to amend in this change.
Ms. KAPTUR. Then, if I might just state for the Record, then the
amendment is a frivolous amendment because it does not change the total
amount of dollars in the account.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
Mr. POMEROY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I must say
that I am profoundly surprised by what is occurring on the floor. I
represent farmers, and these farmers are in a world of hurt.
A bill comes to the floor, the agriculture appropriations bill,
prepared and reported out of the committee with a bipartisan vote
within the appropriations allocation assigned to that committee, and we
begin to see a slew of amendments, amendments that would eviscerate the
help my farmers need.
Now we see, with the unanimous consent request before this body, just
what haphazard nonsense these amendments are. They have not been
printed, they have not been distributed. We have had no notice. They
are not even accurate.
Now the Member seeks unanimous consent to correct his amendment on
the floor as we meet as a Committee of the Whole, because he did not
even go to the preparation of getting it in proper form before bringing
it to us. We have also heard in the preceding discussion that we can
expect more than 100 similar amendments to be offered from this Member.
Back in North Dakota, just like all across this country, farmers are
trying to get their spring financing together. They are trying to get
their crop in. They are trying to figure out how they are going to make
it another year, in light of the financial trouble they are under.
Here in Congress, we cannot even get an agriculture appropriations
bill out of this Chamber without having Members of this body attack
this bill in this fashion. It is shameful.
The only thing that is more shameful than the amendments themselves
is the fact that they have had the support of the majority leadership,
leadership which we are led to believe gave no notice to the
subcommittee chairman that his budget was going to come under attack in
this fashion.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) owe it to the farmers of this country
to stop these amendments and get this bill out.
Mr. Chairman, I object to the Member trying to correct his amendment.
If he wanted to have this amendment considered, he should have had it
in proper form the first time.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The unanimous consent request is
not granted.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, and not on a specific amendment, but on this
process that we are following under.
As I said earlier in the debate, I respect the gentleman's right to
offer amendments. I respect the principle that he is trying to uphold
by reducing the size of this budget. I do not think he is trying to gut
the services and the programs that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
provides to our constituents.
I would remind my colleagues that this bill does not become law for
at least 4 months, so there is nothing wrong with debate. However,
there is something wrong with dilatory tactics. That is exactly what
this seems to be. But I am going to offer the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) who is offering these amendments a chance to prove me
wrong.
What I would ask him is, if the purpose of this is to reduce the bill
to last year's level, or to get to the level that he would like to see
us at with this bill, would the gentleman agree to take all these
amendments, make them en bloc, and present them as one amendment so
that we can deal with this issue right now, and get the work of this
bill done?
Would the gentleman take all these amendments and roll them into one,
offer them en bloc, $249 million, and give the body the opportunity to
vote up or down? If that is the gentleman's point, then I would ask the
gentleman to please respect the Congress, respect
[[Page 10849]]
the House, respect this debate process, respect the chairman,
certainly, who has worked endlessly on this, and give us the
opportunity to vote on this up or down, one vote.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Not speaking for the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Chairman, but it seems to me the problem in that strategy would be well
witnessed by the last vote.
The last vote succeeded and saved the taxpayers a number of dollars.
There are some things that clearly will work and some that will not,
and therefore, the idea of going en bloc might guarantee a defeat of
what the gentleman is trying to do, which is save money.
Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to
carry this on, the gentleman has already conceded that they cannot win
all of these, so if there are some amendments that the Members think
they can, why do not Members offer those en bloc and not offer the ones
that they do not think will pass?
Let us try to be a little bit pragmatic here. If Members want to
accomplish their goal, then work within the normal constraints of the
body and give us an opportunity to move forward on the bill.
I would like to offer, again, the opportunity to the gentleman who
has put these 100-some-odd amendments forward, the opportunity to enter
into a colloquy to determine whether or not he is willing to end this
what I perceive as a dilatory tactic, offer this en bloc, and give us
one vote up or down.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the reason I was hesitating
responding to the gentleman is I do not think I can respond to the
gentleman in the time that is remaining. I am going to ask for
unanimous consent for additional time.
This is not about dilatory tactics, in spite of everything the
gentleman hears. I do not say things I do not mean, and I mean exactly
what I say. That is something different than what this body is known
for, unfortunately, over the last 40 years, as we have confiscated and
put $5.6 trillion on the books owing by our children.
My purpose is to reduce this and to have a discussion, as is my right
in this body, so that the people of this country can hear the people's
business.
I want to tell the Members, there are some farmers out there right
now talking about the 420 percent increase. They had no idea the money
was spent that way. I guarantee a lot of us will hear about it tomorrow
in terms of strategic planning.
Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would again offer the
gentleman the opportunity to, with the help of the Parliamentarian,
roll all these amendments into one to accomplish his goal, which is, I
think, an honest goal, something he believes in; roll them into one,
give us an en bloc amendment, let us vote up or down on this, and then
move forward on the really additionally important aspects of this bill,
which is the agriculture policies and feeding policies of the Nation.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
it would seem to me that the problem with that logic would be that that
assumes that all things are equal within the Department of Agriculture
funding, which I do not think are.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the problem with that
logic assumes that all things are equal within this category of
expenditure. I do not think that to be the case, which is why I would
think that the proposal of gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) does
make sense, because some things we will like, some things we will not.
By going through the debate process amendment by amendment, we find
where the good is and where the bad is.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to
the gentleman from New York as he made his comment about dilatory
tactics, and the comments that I have made earlier about an apparent
filibuster.
I am looking at a Dear Republican Colleague letter here, I guess it
was an e-mail, that was forwarded through several people and finally
was sent to the Committee on Appropriations staff.
It says, ``I just submitted 115 amendments to the Agriculture
Appropriations bill. It is my intent to first oppose the Rule for the
Agriculture Appropriations bill and should the rule be adopted, then
proceed to filibuster the bill with amendments.'' The signature line is
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
So the fact of the matter is he has admitted this is a filibuster. We
ought to get to the business of the House. We do not have filibuster
rules in the House. They do in the other body. Here, we deal with
important legislation that has merit and that has some substance.
The gentleman himself has admitted this is a filibuster. If the
Members of the House want to go along with a filibuster, then we will
stay here until the wee hours of the morning, but if they really are
not pleased with sitting here just spinning our wheels on a filibuster,
then we will proceed to vote these down, and we will not extend
anybody's time limit.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
it would seem to me that a lot of those farmers, whether in Oklahoma or
Texas or in South Carolina, for that matter, a lot of them did not send
in $500,000 worth of taxes. The gentleman's last amendment saved
$500,000. I think that is the core of what he is getting at, not
filibuster, but $500,000 that they would have had to send to Washington
that now they do not.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would make substantial
amendments to this bill, then I think we might remove the suspicion
that this is simply a filibuster.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Oklahoma, with whom I am normally on the same side of the issue.
Mr. COBURN. We are on the same side, we are just maybe talking past
each other. Mr. Chairman, $500,000 in Florida, in South Carolina, and
Oklahoma is substantial money. This last amendment was $15 million
difference, bringing it back down. That is substantial money.
If we do that at $15 million a clip, it is not going to be long until
we have the $250-some million that we are trying to get to get back
down to last year's level.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The way the gentleman is proceeding, an inch at
a time, is a filibuster. These amendments could have been put together.
They could have been done en bloc. They could have been several major
amendments that we could have had a substantial debate, and we have
wasted a lot of time here talking about philosophy that should have
been discussed on the budget bill, when the budget resolution was here.
That is the time these arguments should have been made.
I would say to my friend that this bill and all of the other bills
that we will present to this floor are under the freeze and are within
the budget caps of 1997, and meet the section 302(b) suballocation as
provided for by the budget resolution.
So try to cut the money if the gentleman wants, and believe me, I
have been here to vote for a lot of amendments to cut a lot of money
out of spending bills, but let us do it in a reasonable, responsible
way. Let us combine the amendments so they have some substance to them,
and so that we do not spend the next 3 or 4 or 5 days here going over
115 amendments that the introducer admits is a filibuster.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page 10850]]
{time} 1845
Mr. Chairman, I just want to admonish everybody, first of all, that
it is a violation of House rules to question the motives of other
Members. I just want to make it clear, whether one agrees with these
amendments or one disagrees with the amendments, clearly the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has every right to offer these amendments.
Also, I want to say something else. I have been listening to the
debate and watching on C-SPAN back in my office. It bothers me a little
bit right now. I represent a farm State, and my farmers are hurting,
and that is the truth, and all of my colleagues should know that.
But I will tell my colleagues something else, my farmers do not want
to steal from the Social Security Trust Fund either. Frankly, they feel
a bit abused sometimes when people say things like, well, we have to do
this because of the farmers. They do not want this huge bureaucracy
that we have here in Washington.
I mean, this amendment, as far as I know, deals with $21 million for
new buildings. I will tell my colleagues, on behalf of most of my
farmers, if one asks them, ``Do you think we ought to build $21 million
worth of new buildings for more bureaucracy in Washington, and at the
end of the day be forced to take that money out of Social Security
Trust Funds or to borrow it from our grandchildren for one more
generation,'' the answer to that question is no.
I mean, this idea that we have to patronize farmers, farmers are
Americans, too, and they care about their future. They care about their
kids' future. They care about the future of the Social Security Trust
Fund. They care about these things, too. So I care about what is
happening to farmers.
But I think the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is raising some
very, very good points. For too long in this Congress, every year, we
did what I call ``manana'' budgeting. We will make the tough decisions
``manana''. We will make the tough decisions next year. Well next year
is here and we have got to make some of those tough decisions.
I supported that budget resolution. Frankly, a couple of weeks ago we
had that vote on the emergency supplemental. I voted against it because
I thought that was the first crack in the wall. We are going to see
this happening on every single appropriation bill.
Let me just remind Members, the people of this country did not send
us here to do what was easy. This is tough. Balancing this budget is
not going to be easy this year. In fact, in some respects it is harder
now because we, quote, have a surplus, and everybody, every group that
I can imagine has been in my office saying ``We just want a little bit
of an increase here. If we could, just squeeze out a little more money
for my program.'' Do my colleagues know what happens when we do that?
We never balance the budget. We continue to steal from Social Security.
I care about my farmers. Let me tell my colleagues something. My
farmers care about this budget. They care about the future of this
country. They care about Social Security. I admire the gentleman for
bringing this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's objective of trying to deal
with the budget is a worthy objective. Can I ask the gentleman, since
he is in the majority party and we, as the appropriators, and I
particularly in the minority, have had to abide by the budget caps they
gave us, and we have done that on this Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies,
why do my colleagues not go back and redo the budget rather than put
our subcommittees through this agony on the floor? I am missing
something here.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if my colleagues ask
the average American, whether they are a farmer or a machinist, whether
they live in Ohio or Minnesota, if my colleagues ask them, ``Do you
think the Federal Government can meet the legitimate needs of the
people of this country, of the national defense, and of all the people
who depend upon the Federal Government, do you believe that the Federal
Government can live with spending only $1,700 billion, do my colleagues
know what? If they ask that question, whether it is in Ohio or
Minnesota or Oklahoma, if my colleagues ask people, ``Do you think we
can meet the legitimate needs of the United States of America, spending
only $1,700 billion?'' they will say, ``You betcha.'' Seventeen hundred
billion dollars is a lot of money.
That is what the spending cap is all about, saying that is all we are
going to spend. We are going to have an argument and a fight about how
much is going to go to defense, how much is going to go to agriculture,
how much is going to go to transportation, all the other departments;
but at the end of the day, we ought to live by these spending caps.
I believe in the spending caps. In fact, I have heard leadership on
the other side, I have heard leadership in the Senate, I have even
heard the President of the United States say we are going to live by
the spending caps. Well, this is the first installment to find out if
we really mean it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, but did the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
not abide by the caps that were given to us from the Committee on the
Budget, the budget under the 302(b) allocation?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my
understanding that, no, the subcommittee did not. The subcommittee
overspent it by the smallest amount. Listen. According to what I have
been told by my staff, this bill actually does overspend the budget
allocation by two-tenths of 1 percent.
Admittedly, the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) has done a
fabulous job. I am not here to criticize the subcommittee. But when I
hear people criticizing the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and
criticizing his motives in this debate, I think that is wrong, and my
colleagues have overstepped their bounds.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if I am not incorrect, and I will be happy
to be corrected on this, we still have the amendment before us that was
rejected in terms of it; and if we have spoken, we can not speak again.
I am not sure I recall whether the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
has spoken or not.
The CHAIRMAN. As the gentleman will note, the Chair said, without
objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. I do not object.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, in terms of how the Members of our side of
the aisle functioned, we accepted the budget numbers that were given us
and we acted in good faith on our subcommittee.
We have produced a bill that meets the budget mark that we were
given. So, therefore, to rip apart the bill because maybe my colleagues
do not like some provision in the bill, they want to do something else
with it, well, I think most Members come to the floor but they do not
come with 150 or 200 amendments. We operated in good faith here.
I will tell my colleagues it is a little hard to maintain it as the
hours go on here today, but the point is, if my colleagues do not like
the budget, go back
[[Page 10851]]
and redo the budget. Do not pick apart every appropriation bill that
comes to the floor.
We have lived within our budget. Let our committee function. Frankly,
my colleagues really risk great damage to this Republic, because we
could end up where we were last year when the majority here rammed that
big bill through here at the end of the year because we could not
complete our appropriation bills on time and on schedule.
Here we are here in the Committee on Agriculture, because of the
crisis in rural America, on time with our bill, within the allocation
we are given; and now my colleagues are holding us up again. I fear
that the very same mess that was created last year is going to repeat
itself this year.
So if my colleagues have a problem with the allocation, go back to
their budgeteers; work the problem out there. But when we have
subcommittees acting in good faith and doing their job, do not
disenfranchise them. I think that is the height of my colleagues'
responsibility inside the Chamber.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am probably not going to take the full 5 minutes, but
I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) a little while ago
saying he did not want to do anything to hurt farmers. Well, I have to
tell my colleagues I have the greatest respect for the gentleman, but
the last amendment hurt farmers a lot.
When my colleagues look at the services that they are trying to
provide to farmers in the FSA offices, NRCS offices, with the computer
systems that today cannot work together, and the whole purpose of that
funding is to finally get some coordination at USDA, now this is an
area that I have worked in in the last 3 years trying to fix this
problem so that we can actually deliver services to our farmers, and
cutting this money out of that is wrong.
I did not enter into the debate before because I thought it was
silly, but to make a statement like that simply is wrong. The gentleman
should be aware that many Members who have voted for some of these
amendments have actually come to us and asked for little research
projects. Maybe the two-tenths of 1 percent that is overspent in this
budget may be some of that that is going to different parts of the
country for folk who today are voting to cut in this budget.
I mean, I have heard of rice studies, wild rice, things like that.
There are projects that people have asked all over to be included in
this bill and now are voting against this bill.
We are in the budget caps. If my colleagues do not think that this is
going to hurt farmers, what they are doing, they are wrong. I will tell
my colleagues directly, it may be fine to stand up and talk about
protecting Social Security. The fact of the matter is we do not know
what the budget surplus is going to be at the end of the year. We may
in fact have surplus beyond what Social Security is this year. Then my
colleagues' argument is not correct. Then we are not taking money out
of Social Security.
The fact of the matter is, I agree with my colleagues, we have got to
balance the budget, but the fact of the matter is my colleagues are
hurting farmers. If this is some filibuster today just to take
advantage of an opportunity from very well-meaning people here who have
worked their tails off on a bill, trying to accomplish a bill that
helps a lot of Members around here with very important research
projects that having a lot of them put us over maybe slightly, if in
fact that is the case, but to talk about how this is not hurting
farmers here is simply wrong.
What we are doing here, it makes this House, it really is not the
bright point of the day around here, let me just say that. Because in
fact we have done the hard work of staying within the caps. We have
done what we have been given as far as staying inside our allotments.
But I just take very strong exception to the fact that we are not
hurting farmers here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
take the gentleman's admonition. But I also would point out that in the
last supplemental we gave $47 million to the Department of Agriculture
for Y2K, if I would be allowed to continue, for Y2K just upgrades, just
for that one segment.
I would point out that, in fact, by taking the whole assumption of
the gentleman's argument is that this is the only way we can get there.
My objection to being above what we spent last year is that it is not
the only way. I am not saying my way is the best way, but I am wanting
the people of this country to hear the debate on all of the areas.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will tell the
gentleman we have heard the debate this afternoon. But why does the
gentleman not talk to somebody who has been involved in an issue like
this for 3 years now, trying to get the chief information officer to
straighten out the travesty that is going on at USDA, where we have got
29 agencies down there, smokestacks, which each have their own computer
system, cannot talk to each other, they cannot even e-mail from the
north building to the south building. We are trying to fix that.
Five hundred thousand dollars, maybe my colleagues do not think that
is a big deal, but it is in a nonfunctional agency that is trying to
straighten itself out. It will hurt our farmers, and I just want the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) to know that. That amendment that
passed hurts his farmers at home and hurts the services that USDA
provides them as far as the FSA offices and NRC offices.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first associate myself with the comments of
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) a moment ago. Indeed, that last
amendment did hurt farmers.
If my colleagues had been following, as he has for the last 3 years
and I have for the last 6 years, what we are trying to do at USDA, they
would understand there was a little wisdom in the money that was
proposed to be spent.
Let me speak specifically to the amendment the gentleman proposes to
cut now, a $21 million increase, which the gentleman said a 420 percent
increase, which sounds like a whole bunch of money, and it is a whole
bunch of money, but this is to implement the strategic space plan,
which includes the new USDA office facility on Federal land at
Beltsville. The construction of the Beltsville office facility started
in June 1996, was substantially completed in 1997, and we are
completing the occupancy this year in 1999.
The 2 million gross square feet south building is over 60 years old,
eligible for listing in the National Register. The required renovation
work includes fire protection, abatement of hazardous materials, such
as asbestos, PCB light fixtures, and lead paint, replacement of old,
inefficient heating, ventilation, and all conducting air conditioning
systems for improved energy conservation.
The construction contract for phase one of the modernization was
awarded in July of 1998 but has been tied up in a legal suit, and is
now being proposed to be funded. The fiscal 1999 appropriation of $5
million included funds necessary to continue the south building
modernization.
One of the problems we have got with delivering services to our
farmers, we have not kept up with the technology. We are doing it in
our offices. Notice what happens when we improve the computer
technology here, there is a lot of wires get run. We have to go back
and do things. They are very expensive.
When we are trying to do that to our USDA headquarters so that we
will be able to coordinate our services, it requires spending of some
money. This was a plan that was proposed and is being implemented.
We can cut this money, very easily cut it. But then do not stand up
and criticize USDA for not being able to deliver the services to our
farmers and
[[Page 10852]]
ranchers as we have been doing, many have been doing, blaming it all on
the Secretary of Agriculture because the disaster payments were not
delivered on time.
{time} 1900
Part of that we are dealing with in this first few lines of the bill.
It is what the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from Ohio
have been supporting and trying to do.
I know the gentleman's intentions are very honorable. I do not
question those at all. And I am certainly one that would never stand up
and suggest the gentleman does not have a right to do it. But it would
be helpful if the gentleman's staff would spend a little bit of time
talking specifically about what the gentleman is doing before he stands
up and talks about how he is not doing harm to farmers, because the
gentleman from Iowa stated it very, very accurately and succinctly.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. The gentleman makes some good points. However, Mr.
Chairman, there is one underlying point that I disagree with, and the
underlying assumption with his statement is that the Department of
Agriculture is efficient now and that the money used, and just let me
finish my point, the money that is going to be appropriated above last
year to accomplish these things, that there is no way it could be found
anywhere else.
That is my objection. It is not what the gentleman is doing or how he
is doing it, it is where the money comes from.
The fact is, we do not have the courage to say the Department of
Agriculture has to do this and we are going to write it into the bill
and they will find the money there and they will have to make sure it
gets done because we will have the oversight to make sure that the
Department does do it.
My objection is that this is an inefficient organization. That is not
a slam on the employees, it is a slam on the organizational structure
that we have piecemealed together through the last 40 years or so.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I doubt any other
Member has been more critical of the Department of Agriculture since
1992 in not doing what the gentleman is talking about. But I find it
rather ironic that at the moment we are actually beginning to propose
to put the money into doing what I have been criticizing them for, we
are now going to cut it out and say we want them to do a better job
without it. That is my problem.
And again, fundamentally, the chairman of the committee a moment ago
stated the absolute fact: This bill is within the caps according to the
budget that passed this House, period. So let us not keep talking about
we are doing all of this to save Social Security.
If the gentleman wants to save Social Security, bring a Social
Security bill to the floor and let us talk about Social Security. If he
wants to make points on the agricultural bill, let us debate them. We
can stay and debate them until the cows come home, but we will be
talking specifically about what the gentleman is doing, and again, the
gentleman is hurting farmers in these amendments when he passes them.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Hazardous Waste Management
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to
comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6961,
$15,700,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That appropriations and funds available herein to the
Department for Hazardous Waste Management may be transferred
to any agency of the Department for its use in meeting all
requirements pursuant to the above Acts on Federal and non-
Federal lands.
Departmental Administration
(including transfers of funds)
For Departmental Administration, $36,117,000, to provide
for necessary expenses for management support services to
offices of the Department and for general administration and
disaster management of the Department, repairs and
alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and expenses
not otherwise provided for and necessary for the practical
and efficient work of the Department, including employment
pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed
$10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That
this appropriation shall be reimbursed from applicable
appropriations in this Act for travel expenses incident to
the holding of hearings as required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Page 6, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $3,049,000)''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to talk
about the 12 percent increase in the Department of Agriculture
administration budget. The increase is from the fiscal 1999 level of
$32 million, increasing it by $3,949,000.
According to the committee print, departmental administration is
comprised of activities that provide staff support to top policy
officials and overall direction and coordination within the Department.
These activities include department-wide programs for human resource
management, I believe we have talked about that in a couple of the
amendments; management improvement, we have talked about that;
occupational safety and health management, we have talked about that;
real and personal property management, we just talked about that in the
previous amendment; procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and
aircraft management, supply management, civil rights, equal opportunity
and ethics, participation of small and disadvantaged businesses and
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the departmental
programs activities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Again, I would raise the point, I do not have an objection with any
member of this committee. I know that they have done good work. I do
not disagree that they have met the targeted caps.
What I am saying is, when was the last time an appropriation bill
came to the floor that was below the caps? What a novel idea, if we
are, in fact, going to not spend money that does not belong to us.
Now, I understand why other Members do not want to talk about the
Social Security issue, and I agree with the members of the committee
who say we have met our 302(b) allocation. I agree with that. They
have. My purpose in offering the amendments is to drive efficiency in
the Federal Government, to ask the question, why, when we spend a 12
percent increase in administrative overhead within a department. I
would say that if this is truly the people's House, a debate on those
issues ought to be heard by one and all.
The other thing that I would object to is the reference to this bill
being the committee's bill. This bill is all of ours. It is not just
the committee's bill, it is the House's bill. And to say that one of us
has more priority over this bill than any others is wrong.
The other thing I want to do is to take a minute and perhaps defend
my motives. And I am somewhat discouraged that the gentlewoman from
Ohio has not recognized my persistence in the past 5 years. Because
three times today she said that my motivation is based on the fact that
I am not running for reelection.
I never was running for reelection when I came up here on this this
year. And I would ask, if the gentlewoman
[[Page 10853]]
were to look at my voting record and at my challenges in terms of the
appropriations process, she would see that I did this same thing last
year and the year before and the year before.
So this does not have anything to do with running for reelection,
this has to do with questioning why we would have a 12 percent increase
in administrative overhead. And if we have to do that, and that is the
only way we can do it, and there is no waste in the other $32 million
and it cannot be done better and it cannot be done more efficiently and
the American people can be convinced of that and I can be convinced of
that, I will be happy to withdraw this amendment.
But as I look at what I read in the committee print, and having been
through five of these appropriation bills in the past, I do not believe
that that is true. I think they can do better. And I believe that it is
wrong for us not to ask the administration within the Department of
Agriculture to do better.
Most of the Members of this body would like to see a 12 percent
increase in their staff and their capability of running their offices,
but the fact is, we are not going to pass that for ourselves, are we?
But we are going to say that the Department of Agriculture is
underfunded in terms of its administrative capability, does not have
the dollars to do what it needs to do and must have a 12 percent
increase, when the true cost of living associated with government-run
programs in this area, and the area where the vast concentration of
these employees are, rose by less than 1.7 percent last year.
So what we did in terms of the computers in the Office of Information
was true, and we cannot take it out of this money, or not because it is
not that there is not enough money. There is money running all over
this bill. And I again would say, ask the farmers.
A $3,949,000 increase from $32 million; that is 12 percent. How many
of them are going to see 12 percent handed to them? They are not. And
how many of them want to see this money spent up here? They want to see
it spent on them, not up here. And they want to make sure that we are
supporting them with their ability to continue to feed us and that we
give them a constant program.
So I do not object to what the committee has done. I said when we
talked about the rule that this was a good bill and that it was
probably going to pass. What I said was that I did not think it was
good enough and it needed to get better.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
When the gentleman said that he really is looking for ways for
efficiency, I think if he was an astute politician he would know that
merely cutting is not necessarily the way to efficiency. Efficiency
includes more than dollar amounts.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that we have
not proposed a cut. What we have proposed is leaving it at last year's
level.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the assumption is
that the gentleman is looking for efficiency, and therefore, if we
leave it at that level, meaning less expenditure, then by that
definition, we would have more efficiency.
But let me tell the gentleman what these particular funds he proposes
that are not needed will be used for: one, for the Office of Civil
Rights. And that may not be important to the gentleman from Oklahoma,
but I can tell him it is important to a large number of farmers who
felt that this USDA, who the gentleman says is inefficient, had also
not been fair, and in fact had to file a lawsuit as a result of their
discriminatory actions.
This now allows them to more efficiently respond to those complaints
rather than have the U.S. Government to pay out a large settlement
because of the failure of their accountability and responsibility. $1.6
million of the $3.6 goes to the Office of Civil Rights.
Even more important to socially disadvantaged farmers is the $931
million that affords the opportunity for small farmers, not just
necessarily minority farmers, but small, disadvantaged farmers who will
have outreach and technical assistance. This may not be big to the
gentleman from Oklahoma, but it is efficiency in their way of thinking
to have the kinds of services explained to them, to have the technical
assistance so they can more efficiently produce their products with the
kind of expectation that they will be profitable in their livelihood.
So the $3.9 million which is being offered here already is
insufficient to meet all of the needs.
If the gentleman's definition were applied, I think he actually would
need to add to this, if the gentleman is truly about putting the money
where it is most needed and making sure it is implemented. I would
think by the gentleman's definition, and I disagree with the
gentleman's premise, it would say this is insufficient.
If the gentleman understood what this is doing, he would say they
should have been doing this. They should do it better. There should be
more outreach programs, not less. The Office of Civil Rights should
have been there before. These farmers should not have had to sue.
Now we are putting a structure there so that there can be the kind of
investigation that needs to be there.
So I would think the gentleman would want to be on the side of, not
anticivil rights, but the gentleman would want to be on the side of,
there should be fairness and there should be a structure there to deal
with this. And the gentleman's amendment, in his zeal for his fiscal
philosophy denies the very premise of efficiency of this department
serving the people who need it most.
So I would urge that this amendment on its merit, not on the
philosophy, just on its merit, should be defeated.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
My colleagues, the Department of Agriculture has been dealing with
serious civil rights issues for the last several years. Minority
farmers and employees at USDA have filed discrimination litigation, and
the increase provided in this account would go a long way towards
addressing some of those civil rights issues.
I would like to have that entered in the discussion because I think
the gentlewoman from North Carolina had a very pertinent point.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
My colleague is not on the floor at this time, the maker of the
motion, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), but I was rising to
appeal to him to allow at least some of us who have some expertise in
this area to speak to him, as I would if he were discussing medical
issues. I really do believe that he knows a lot more about that than I
do.
Now he has dipped over into the legal arena, and I think I know a
little bit more about that than he does.
With that in mind, I would offer to him that the status quo would
create backlogs, and the creating of backlogs is what this particular
12 percent is intended to try to get rid of. When backlogs occur in any
structural system, and it does not matter whether or not it is
employment discrimination or if it is in the criminal arena or if it is
in the civil arena, it impacts the whole process.
It is not just one thing that is impacted, it is not just this
particular office of departmental administration, it is all of what
they do in trying to clear up the number of cases that they have.
{time} 1915
Over the years, there have been a number of legitimate complaints
that have been brought and those people have to sit and wait. Let me
see if I can get my colleague to understand the analogy.
In South Florida, at one time we had to try nothing but drug cases.
By trying drug cases, we forced civil litigants to have to seek redress
elsewhere, and people who needed remedies in the Federal court system
were unable to get them because we were busying ourselves with one side
of the system, which was mandated that we do.
[[Page 10854]]
We need to be very, very careful in expecting in every instance that
people can do more with less. What they are asking for is 17 staff
years, $1.6 million, and 11 staff dollars for 931 in the Office of
Outreach which, incidentally, also deals with the National Commission
on Small Farms, yet another area totally unrelated to anything having
to do with civil rights per se, but an initiative that is important so
that small farmers have a chance to survive in this system.
I do not know what it will take in order for us to understand this
particular dynamic, but I will take it up with the maker of the motion
so as he understands that it is not just going to, if his motion were
to pass, impact this one arena, it would impact the whole.
And in this particular instance they have not been able to do the job
efficiently and effectively with what they have, and there is no need
to expect if they leave them in the status quo that they are going to
be able to do more.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, right over there is a dictionary; and if
we look up the word ``efficient,'' here is what it says: ``ability to
accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort.''
My colleagues, there is a lot of discussion about this amendment, but
I think we ought to get back to what it really does. In fact, let us
use a little bit of analogy. Let us take a major corporation, and my
colleagues fill in the blank. They can say AT&T. They can say Chrysler.
They can say IBM, whatever. And let us say this company thinks that
they have had a problem with efficiency.
Now, this company has 107,000 employees. They have another 80,000
contract employees. In fact, it works out to about one employee or
contract employee for every 10 customers. This is a mythical
corporation. And we are the board of directors and we are sitting
around saying what can we do to make this thing a little more
efficient.
Now, how many of my colleagues think they would raise their hands and
say, you know what we ought to do? We ought to increase administration
by 12 percent. That is crazy. That would not happen at Chrysler. That
would not happen at AT&T. That would not happen at IBM. But, my
colleagues, that is what is happening in this bill. We have one
employee or contract employee for every 10 farmers in this USDA.
Now, again, I come back, if we ask most farmers do they think that is
an appropriate level, they would say that is ridiculous. And so would
most voters. And so before we dismiss this amendment out of hand, this
is not an anti-farmer amendment. This is about the board of directors
saying we have a terribly inefficient administration right now in the
USDA and throwing more money at it is not going to make it more
efficient.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all,
let me say that if the offerors of the amendment want efficiency, then
surely the bill that our subcommittee has brought to the floor is
efficient.
In fact, the author of the amendment stated in his last comments on
the floor that we were in fact within the budget allocation. So we have
a very efficient bill, without question.
Now, this particular amendment is one that goes after one particular
function at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the proponents
claim that it is efficient. Let me say that overall, our bill is
efficient. But in making decisions in the public realm, one has to not
only be efficient, one has to be equitable, and I would oppose the
gentleman's amendment on the basis that it is not equitable.
Why? What are these funds dedicated to? They are dedicated to
redressing wrongs inside USDA and an inability, because of
discrimination in past years, for that department to deal with all of
America, all of America's farmers, regardless of color, regardless of
creed, regardless of sex, whatever.
The funding that is provided, and even the Wall Street Journal has
done front page stories on this, my colleagues do not have to listen to
this Member, they just need to call it up on their web site, is to
redress past wrongs.
The inability of this department in past years to serve all of
America's farmers, to make sure that the credit programs were open to
all farmers, to make sure that when people worked hard, just because
they might have had low equity did not mean that their work did not
have a value, and that in fact they perhaps should not have been
ignored for decades and in fact perhaps for a century and a half.
And so I would say to those who offer this amendment, I would hope
they would withdraw this. I think to try to cut funds, for example, for
the Office of Outreach, and again our bill is within the budget
allocation, means that they will continue the historic discrimination
that has characterized so much of the behavior of our Government and
our people in this century and the last.
This is the first time we have had a chance to do what is both
efficient and equitable. And I would ask my colleagues and those who
are offering this amendment to really seriously consider what they are
about to do. I really do not think they want to do this. I think they
want to do what is right for America, right for all of its people, and
right for the future.
I would encourage my colleagues to vote a strong ``no'' on this
Coburn amendment.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn). I think it is a concern for this bill as well as the
other appropriations bill, and I join in that concern. And I know he
had a concern about the supplemental, and I did too, about it running
wild, about us missing the point as far as what ``emergency'' was and
what ``emergency'' was not.
But I serve on this subcommittee, this Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
of the Committee on Appropriations, and I know the balance that we have
to give, so I stand here sort of split and yet not split on this
particular issue.
To bring this within the caps, I think the chairman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) did a wonderful job. It has been easy over the years when
we could just borrow money and say, well, the heck with it. We do not
care about this or that. But we gave our word and we kept our word.
Now, what the problem is, is that I think that the position of the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is lessened somewhat about this
accusation of filibuster. And I hope he can hear me and he will come
and talk about it. But I know that we have had this before in past
years. I would like for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), if he
can, to come and defend that position of filibustering because I think
it was his words, from what I understand, and it is going to undermine
those elements, that we need to push down the expenses that we have in
the appropriations bill.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to go to this notion that the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is somehow filibustering. Because just on the
back of the envelope, I grabbed my calculator, and if my colleagues
look at the amount of money that this particular amendment would save,
it would save $3,900,000. Now, if we take people earning average
income, it would take 1,974 taxpayers earning a whole year's worth of
income to pay the taxes on $3,900,000.
So what we are really talking about is, again, 1,900 people paying
taxes for a year. That seems to me to be anything but a filibuster but
something very real, because what we are talking about are people's
lives and where are they sending money.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, one thing I want to add
is
[[Page 10855]]
this applies to almost all the bills, the same type of thing. And what
I would like to ask is for us to have a better way, and I am frustrated
too, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a better way for us to
express our frustration and to hope to bring constructive change than
this way of doing things.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would disagree. I think that the American
people benefit from seeing the debates on how we spend money; and the
closer that we put the magnifying glass to it, the better we are as a
country.
And I understand the pride of ownership of the Committee on
Appropriations as they work hard to bring these bills up. And I am
going to remind my colleagues again, when we talked about the rule, I
said when we talked on the general debate hour that this was a good
bill. I want to try to make it better, and I also want us to not be in
a position where we are going to spend the first dollar of Social
Security surplus.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, here is another
question: Are we going to do this on each one of the appropriation
bills? If we are, we are going to lessen the effect of the conservative
concerns of my colleague about spending outside the caps.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
have no intentions to do it on anything other than what I think will
not lead us to the commitment that we have made to the American people.
The minority offered a budget and it had some good things in there,
but the one common thing it had is they were going to take some of the
money and make sure we did not spend any money of Social Security on
anything except Social Security and Medicare.
The Blue Dogs had a budget. Same thing. The Republicans had a budget
that ultimately passed the House. Everybody agrees, with the exception
of two Members of this House who voted for President Clinton's budget
which said I am going to spend 38 percent of Social Security money. At
least he admitted it.
We either need to say we do not have the courage to trim the spending
in the Federal Government and that we are going to take 38 percent, the
seniors' money, or we need to say, the President was wrong, we do have
the courage to spend less money up here.
I want to make the point again. The 302(b) allocations that my
colleagues all have met, they have met the requirement of the budget
numbers and the number that was given to them. I am not objecting to
that. What I am objecting to is, number one, the 302(b)'s this year are
not an adequate representation of what is going to happen. And there is
not a person in this body that does not know that. And that is a sham
to the American public to say this is one 302(b) but the rest of them
are not.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey)
has expired.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Arkansas be given 3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
To take the 302(b) allocations that we all know on the four big bills
are not an accurate reflection of what is going to happen, and their
claim to use that as a designation for why we should not trim this bill
additionally is not fair to the American people.
I have no fight to pick with the appropriators on this committee, and
I have no desire to harm farmers. I say that they can do it better.
What we hear in this body all the time is it cannot be done, we cannot
do it. Well, I come from a group of people that says we can do it. We
can do better. We cannot spend all the money allocated to us. We can
get efficiencies without adding money to the Department of Agriculture.
We can demand innovation, insight, and new ideas. We can promote
efficiency.
The VA Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma, is a great example of
that where they cut their costs like crazy and they did not spend any
additional money. So if they can do it, why cannot the Department of
Agriculture do it? Why cannot the administration and the Department of
Agriculture do it? They can do it, but they are never going to do it
until we make them do it. We have to demand that they do it.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Oklahoma, are we
doing the right thing by doing it by filibustering? That is my
question.
It seems to me that he has got a better argument than to use
something that is indirect.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, ``filibuster'' is not my word. My word is
let us bring it back to the freeze level of where we were last year and
ask for efficiency, and I am willing to do that. And I have said here
on this floor, as soon as we are back to the level in terms of cuts, I
am through.
I am looking for dollars. The term to ``filibuster,'' it is a
filibuster in terms of taking time, but that is not my intention. My
intention is to get us back down to where we were last year. My
colleagues will see me walk right out of here as soon as we have done
it. But to resist calls for efficiency, to resist debate on issues is
not fair to the American public.
And to impugn my motivations. I want to tell my colleagues something.
My motivations are pure. I think about my grandkids and I think about
the grandkids of all of those patients that I take care of. Every baby,
three babies this weekend, I spank the bottom of. I delivered three new
babies into this world. Every one of them owes $21,000, and it is
growing at $500 a year, what they owe.
{time} 1930
They will never see the first penny of Social Security unless we have
the courage to step up to the plate and demand change in Washington and
demand it of ourselves. I am not talking about not having the right
priorities. I do not want to punish our farmers. But I want us to
create an environment of change that says we are not going to spend
more, we can do better, we can spend less.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. I would just like to ask the gentleman, did
he charge for delivering those babies?
Mr. COBURN. I am a Member of Congress. I can make no money as a
doctor.
Mr. FARR of California. I am glad to hear that.
I want to ask one question of the gentleman. I sit on the Committee
on Appropriations. I have not sat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies before.
We had dozens and dozens of hearings. We asked Members to come before
the committee. We debated these items because that is the way you put
together a budget. To my recollection, the gentleman never came to one
of the committee hearings. He never suggested in a letter to the
committee that we cut any of these programs. This is the first instance
of his litany of cuts that we are faced with.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. The gentleman makes the point that I was not before his
committee on the cuts. That is a valid
[[Page 10856]]
criticism, but that does not deny me the right to raise the issue on
this floor and to say that I do not have the right to raise the issue
on this floor because I was not before his committee. Simply because of
the way the House operates, as the gentleman well knows, you cannot be
at all those at one time and fulfill the rest of your duties.
The point is, do you agree or do you not agree that we should trim
some of the administrative overhead out of this budget? If you do not
agree, then, fine, that is what our debate is all about. We are in the
Committee of the Whole. That is what this is. That is why we are doing
it in the Committee.
Mr. FARR of California. If the gentleman will yield further, there is
a process here, and I think what is disturbing the House is that we try
to honor that process. I do not think by bringing 114, as you have
stated, amendments to the floor is a process that we use very often, if
ever, and certainly I have been here a short while and I have never
seen it used before.
Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, one of the Coburn amendments saves
the taxpayers $500,000.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, discussion has taken place with regard to the motives
and the application of the process. I would just like to remind the
Members and talk very briefly about an incident that happened on the
floor just a couple of hours ago.
That was, I opposed the rule for the consideration of this bill
because the bill spends more money than it did last year. The
discretionary amount is more than what we passed out of this House last
year.
I was asked why I would oppose an open rule, and I think that was a
good question. I think that was a good question because the Committee
on Rules, I believe, relinquishes a great deal of power whenever they
decide to give an open rule, and it was a good question. The reason was
not because we had the freedom of an open rule, but merely because the
rule allowed for the deliberation on this floor of a bill that spent
more money last year, the very first bill in the appropriations process
that we deal with is going to spend more money than we spent on this
bill before.
And so the reason that the gentleman is offering so many amendments
is not for the sake of a filibuster, but for the simple fact that we
have an open rule.
I was led to believe that an open rule would allow for free debate.
Now we hear that the debate should in fact be reduced, should be cut
off by the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think in fact if we are going to
have an open rule and a gentleman will go to the hardship of having
many of these amendments preprinted in the Record and offering them
himself, we should at least recognize the Rules of the House.
Secondly, with regard to hurting America's farmers, I do not know,
maybe southwest Indiana farmers are different from other farmers, but
whenever I ask farmers in southwest Indiana what they would like to see
coming from the Federal Government, the first thing they always tell me
is tax relief. I tell them we can cut taxes, but if we continue to
increase spending across the board, even in the Agriculture Department,
somebody is going to have to pay for that.
And so when I say we can either give you tax relief or we can take
more of your tax dollars to allow the various bureaucracies to spend
that money in order to help you, they realize in fact that Washington,
D.C. is probably not the best source of their help.
Secondly, they ask for regulatory relief. If individuals really want
to help farmers, they will indeed support regulatory relief, and for a
little bit of commercial activity, I will merely tout the virtues of
H.R. 1578, my Protect American Agricultural Lands Act of 1999, which
will allow for that land which has been in production 5 of the last 10
years to be exempt from clean water permitting, because in fact it has
been used for farming.
Thirdly, the agriculture community wants open markets, places where
they can sell their product. But they do not want open market
agreements for the sake of merely signing an agreement. They want
agreements that can be enforced, enforced by this administration which
they see dreadfully lacking.
Finally, I will simply say that this is the opportunity that many of
us that do not necessarily serve on the House Committee on
Appropriations have to offer amendments in this fashion. When we look
at all the various constituencies of all of these provisions, we
realize that in fact there is the potential in the future to not cut $5
billion from the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Department. There will not be the opportunity to cut almost $4 billion
from the Veterans' Administration and the Housing and Urban Development
bill that is going to come up later, that in fact if we are not
diligent from the very outset of this whole appropriations process,
that in fact it will whirl out of control; and when we get to the end
of the appropriations season later this year, that we will in fact be
busting the caps and having to reduce our commitment to cutting taxes,
our commitment to stopping the raids on the Social Security trust fund;
and we will in fact tell America that indeed Washington D.C. knows
best, and if you simply give us more of your money, we will prove it to
you.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment
and ask that the Committee do likewise.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Again, I think it is important that we focus on the process which we
are discussing today. Again, I quarrel not with the motives of the
gentleman from Oklahoma. He has every right, as others have said, to
bring the amendments before this body that he has brought today; and I
have opposed them because I disagree with them.
I think it is important, though, for everyone to understand the real
quarrel apparently is with the leadership on the other side of the
aisle. That is where the quarrel is. Because we are disagreeing with
the numbers that have been given to the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies. That was given as a leadership decision.
I happen to have supported a budget that protected Social Security,
that paid off $88 billion more debt over the next 5 years than the
budget we are talking about, provided a reasonable tax cut and improved
the funding of five priority areas, one of which was agriculture of
which I am prepared to say we are $450 million under what we need to be
spending for American agriculture.
Why do I say that? Because I am proud of our American agricultural
system, from our farmers on up and down. We have the most abundant food
supply in this Nation, we have the best quality of food, we have the
safest food supply to our consumers of any country in the world, and we
do it at the lowest cost, including all of this, quote, ``wasteful
spending'' we are talking about today.
Now, do I make this argument in saying that we cannot do better?
Obviously we could do better. But we have ways of doing it better. It
is called the House Committee on Agriculture and it is called the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies that spend the hours looking
at these details and making those decisions. I put my trust in them, on
the first part because I am one, but I do not quarrel at all with the
gentleman who chooses to say that we have not done our jobs properly.
Let me read this letter:
The American Farm Bureau Federation is aware of a long list
of amendments to be offered to H.R. 1906. In addition to the
letter sent this morning, we are deeply concerned about these
amendments and the approach being taken against general
agriculture programs.
Specifically, we are opposed to amendments that would
prohibit funding to promote the sale or export of tobacco,
decrease spending for the APHIS Boll Weevil Program and
effectively eliminate the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. We
oppose any cut in
[[Page 10857]]
funding for agricultural research programs for wool, cotton,
shrimp aquaculture, blueberries, specialty crops or precision
agriculture. We oppose any attempts to decrease funding for
agriculture market analysis, promotion and rural development.
Further, we oppose cuts in funding for conservation
programs, the peanut price support loan rate and any
reductions in research or other cuts to peanut support
programs. We also oppose any attempts to effectively
eliminate any international or domestic marketing programs.
Farm Bureau has worked closely with the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee and supports the bill as reported
by the committee.
This is our largest farm organization that has looked at the work of
the gentlewoman and the gentleman and others in saying, in their
judgment, we cannot make these cuts without doing harm. Again, I
specifically have objected to the previous two amendments and to this
amendment for the reasons that were specified before, in pointing out
that if we are going to be critical of inefficient operation in USDA,
if we are going to be critical of those ``who have not been able to do
their job,'' quote-unquote, then how do we justify coming in and saying
we are going to deny them the tools to bring them into the modern
century of technology which is what the committee suggested be done?
That is the simple question. It deserves a simple ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Again, I want to be clear about what we are doing. We are
cutting nothing. What we are saying is we are holding to last year's
level.
I understand the Farm Bureau. I have worked with them a great amount.
A large number of the people who supported me to come here are from
that organization.
But I would also say that there probably would not be anything that
they would probably say was a good idea to cut out of this bill,
because that is not what they are set up to do. They are set up to make
sure that their members are protected in this bill.
I just wanted to state, and I thank the gentleman for being so kind
as to yield to me, there is not a cut in the bill. It is the old
Medicare scam cut, hold spending or cut. What we are saying is, let us
not increase the administrative overhead that has been proposed in the
bill.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would follow up on the remarks of the gentleman from Texas,
specifically the letter, because it seems to me, as the gentleman from
Oklahoma just suggested, that naturally they are in the business of
protecting the status quo.
What the gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to do is anything but the
status quo, and that is, on a line-by-line basis, to walk through
money, where it is going, where it is being spent and asking, is the
taxpayer getting the best bang for his buck.
I would disagree with the letter on a whole number of fronts. I mean,
for instance, the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendments, for instance,
do not touch the sugar subsidy program. That letter has basically said
the sugar subsidy is right.
I know we would disagree on this, but I have problems with any system
wherein you have got the Fanjul family out of Palm Beach who are worth
over $400 million, who get $60 million a year as a result of a program
that is part of this bill. That is not even being challenged by what
the gentleman from Oklahoma is doing. So I think I would have a number
of objections to that letter.
But I want to go back to the original content of what he is getting
at, which is, line by line, looking at where the money is being spent
and simply asking, is the taxpayer getting a good return on his
investment. I would say no, because going back to, I guess the comments
of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), if you had any
corporation out there in America that had 100,000 employees, had 80,000
contract employees and said, how can we make it better, their solution
would not be to increase administration by 12 percent. Yet that is what
this does.
All this amendment would do would be to knock out that increase. That
is worth doing, it seems to me, for a couple of reasons. If you took
out this $3.9 million that we are talking about at $20,000 a pop, that
would buy tractors for 200 farmers. I would rather put the money into
tractors.
It would pay taxes for 2,600 farmers if you figured the taxes on a
small farm were $1,500. It would take 1,900 farmers earning an average
income to pay the money for this increase; or turned around a different
way, it would take one farmer 1,900 years to pay for the increase that
this amendment gets at.
{time} 1945
It is a sensible amendment. It gets at where is the money going.
Most farmers I talk to, talk to somebody down at the stockyard or
talk to somebody at FTX, these are reasonable, commonsense folks, and
the idea of plussing up the administration, and in fact I saw one thing
here in the administration portion, and I would have a question for the
staff on this, talking about aircraft management.
I mean how many aircraft does the Department of Agriculture own?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the gentleman one
simple question.
He mentioned that there is nothing wrong with going over this line by
line, dollar by dollar, and that is not bad.
Would the gentleman move now to abolish the committee system of the
United States House of Representatives?
Why are we wasting our time with 13 committees?
They hold hearings, and they have all these experts coming together,
and let me finish.
Mr. SANFORD. No. Reclaiming my time, of all people, the gentleman
from Vermont has been consistently independent in the way he votes. To
suggest that he takes anything lock-step from the committee as it
comes, I mean the gentleman would be the furthest person from that. He
is the one independent that is here.
Mr. SANDERS. True. But I have never offered 125 amendments, and as
independent as I am, I think the committee process is a reasonable
process. We have got 435 people. In all fairness, in all fairness, the
gentleman does not think he knows all aspects of that bill.
The gentleman never sat on the committee, nor have I, and I think it
is totally reasonable.
I have two amendments that I am offering. The gentleman may have some
amendments. But basically really what he is saying is, ``If you're
supporting the concept of bringing 125 amendments up,'' what the
gentleman is saying is, ``Let's junk the committee.''
Mr. SANFORD. Absolutely. Reclaiming my time, this is part of a much
larger conversation, as the gentleman from Oklahoma has already
suggested, and that is, as we all know, if we wait until the end when
we run into Labor-HHS, when we run into VA-HUD, we are running into a
train wreck, and so I mean unless we address this larger issue; which
is, as my colleagues know, we can cherry pick the easy bills,
supposedly ag was going to be one of those; do those first, and then
wait for the really difficult bills later on. If so, we are in real
trouble, and it means we will be taking the money from Social Security,
which is why I go back to the simple point: would we rather spend money
on this, as my colleague knows, administration here within the
Department of Ag, or would we rather save it for Social Security?
I would rather save it for Social Security.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings
on
[[Page 10858]]
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out
the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving
intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive
branch, $3,668,000: Provided, That no other funds
appropriated to the Department by this Act shall be available
to the Department for support of activities of congressional
relations: Provided further, That not less than $2,241,000
shall be transferred to agencies funded by this Act to
maintain personnel at the agency level.
Office of Communications
For necessary expenses to carry on services relating to the
coordination of programs involving public affairs, for the
dissemination of agricultural information, and the
coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by
Congress in the Department, $8,138,000, including employment
pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed
$10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers'
bulletins.
Office of the Inspector General
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence
of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
and the Inspector General Act of 1978, $65,128,000, including
such sums as may be necessary for contracting and other
arrangements with public agencies and private persons
pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of
1978, including not to exceed $50,000 for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109; and including not to exceed $125,000 for certain
confidential operational expenses, including the payment of
informants, to be expended under the direction of the
Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-452 and section
1337 of Public Law 97-98.
Office of the General Counsel
For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $29,194,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic
Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
$940,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Page 9, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $400,000)''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this again is an area that has a 75 percent
increase, and the first thing I would like to do with my time, if I
may, is inquire of the committee the thinking behind this increase of
75 percent in this account so that we can have an understanding of it,
and actually I would, if the gentleman from Texas knows the reason for
that, I would even respond if he could give us the answer for that.
The fact is, this is a significant increase for just the Office of
the Under Secretary. We are not talking about research, we are talking
about the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, by increasing it
by $400,000, and I just would like an explanation.
Mr. Chairman, it was $140,000, and it is going to be $540,000, and I
believe that people would like to know why we are increasing that
spending, and we ought to have a good explanation of why we are
expending. If there is a great one and we should not be trimming this
money out, then I will be happy to defer to the chairman, but to me it
seems this 75 percent increase, from $400,000 to $540,000, is a
significant increase.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
economic research service
For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in
conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627)
and other laws, $70,266,000: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to
the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of
1944 (7. U.S.C. 2225).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Page 9, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $4,509,000)''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, again this is an increase of $4,509,000 on
a budget. Last year was at $65,000. What we are seeing is a 6.8 percent
increase, and the question that I would ask again is if we are going to
increase this $4,509,000, and ultimately when it is all said and done
the money is going to come out of the Social Security surplus, that we
ought to have a great explanation.
If my colleagues read the committee print on this, and I will take
the time to read it, there is not a valid explanation of what we are
doing here, and again I would query the members of the committee. Maybe
we are supposed to be doing this just to give us a good answer, and I
will try to withdraw this amendment. But the fact is that we have
silence on the issue.
Let me read what the committee print says.
``For the Economic Research Service the committee provides an
appropriation of $70 million, an increase of $4,509,000 above 1999 and
an increase of $14 million above the budget we have. The committee has
provided $17,495,000, an increase of 300 above the budget request, for
studies and evaluations of work under the Food and Nutrition Service.''
Now I am for our elderly food nutrition programs, I am for our WIC
programs, but I want to know how we are going to spend this money, and
I want to know why we are spending it in the direction and the
increase, if, in fact, the committee expects ERS to consult and work
with the staff of the Food and Nutrition Service as well as other
agencies to assure that all the studies and evaluations are meeting the
needs of the department. Is there an area where we are not supplying
that need with the $65 million that we had last year? Is there money
that could go to our farmers that are out there starving? Could some of
this $4,509,000 go directly to farmers?
As my colleagues know, we say we want to help farmers, and some
gentlemen have said today that some of our amendments have hurt
farmers. Well, if they have, help us take this and change this and move
it to the farmers instead of spending it on bureaucracies.
Again, we are going to have a process by which at the end of the
appropriation day this $4,509,000, whether we want to hear it or not,
is going to be taken from the Social Security surplus. Most people in
this room know that. It is apparent that that is what is going to
happen, regardless of whether we have another omni-terrible bill or
not. The money on increased spending is going to be taken from the
Social Security surplus, and I believe that it is the honorable thing
for us to do to stand up and admit that, and then say I believe we
ought to take from the Social Security surplus an additional $4,509,000
to run this branch of the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and we have been hearing talk
of efficiency, and this is one area where the committee strongly
believes that we have been very efficient.
The funding in this account is made up of two parts. One is the base
economic research program for USDA, and the other is in the studies and
evaluation for the feeding programs in this bill. By consolidating the
studies and evaluations funding in this account, we have found that the
program can be managed more efficiently.
[[Page 10859]]
The increase to this account is made up by corresponding increases in
the child nutrition, food stamp and WIC accounts, and if we cut this
account there will be no way of determining whether or not the $36
billion that we are spending on feeding programs in this bill are
meeting their goals.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I just wish to state for
the record that the Food and Nutrition Service, which is in another
account, was conducting some of its own evaluations for a number of
years, and the committee felt that a more objective set of evaluations
could be done through the Economic Research Service. That is the reason
that these funds are in this account, because essentially we have
transferred responsibilities from the Food and Nutrition Service to the
Economic Research Service.
This is a new function, in a sense, for the Economic Research
Service, but we believe with their objectivity they could do a good job
of evaluating the two-thirds to three-quarters, actually three-quarters
of this budget that is in the mandatory programs, including our major
food and nutrition programs.
So I think the gentleman expressed some concern that there were funds
in here providing for research, but the point is they are not being
provided in the Food and Nutrition Service any more. These
responsibilities have been shifted to the Economic Research Service.
So I wanted to state that for the record and to state that we hope
that the Economic Research Service will do their job well. We certainly
have had waste, fraud and abuse in many of the food and nutrition
programs, and we have been going after that through the Inspector
General, I think who is doing a tremendous job at USDA in particular,
and I would hope that the evaluations that would be done would continue
to show progress.
So I would not support the gentleman's amendment because I think it
is a rather arbitrary and ill-advised cut.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, so I understand what the gentlewoman has
said, last year for these programs there was no money for ERS under
Food and Nutrition, and all of the increase, this $4,509,000, all of
that increase is only for this area?
Ms. KAPTUR. For the Economic Research Service, yes.
Mr. COBURN. Or associated with Food and Nutrition Services.
Ms. KAPTUR. That is correct.
Mr. COBURN. And the money that was being spent in the Food and
Nutrition Services has been reduced by that amount and transferred to
this committee.
Ms. KAPTUR. The Food and Nutrition Service will no longer be doing
its own evaluations; that is correct.
Mr. COBURN. But that is different than the amount of money that they
were spending on it being reduced from their budget and transferred to
the ERS.
Ms. KAPTUR. The Food and Nutrition Service will no longer perform
their own evaluative research; that is correct.
Mr. COBURN. But they will still have the money that they were using
to do that, and those structures will be in place.
Ms. KAPTUR. They will not be doing research in this evaluative
research. We changed it because we thought that perhaps they had too
much of a vested interest in continuing programs the way they were, and
the monitoring might not have been as objective as it should have been.
This may not work under ERS. We are not sure it will work, but we
think it is a way of being more objective.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) is withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and
service work, including crop and livestock estimates,
statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys,
and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
1621-1627, Public Law 105-113, and other laws, $100,559,000,
of which up to $16,490,000 shall be available until expended
for the Census of Agriculture: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to
the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of
1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $40,000 shall be
available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Agricultural Research Service
For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research
Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration
relating to production, utilization, marketing, and
distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or
nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition,
preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information;
and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or
purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land
exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value
or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor
which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the
land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership,
$836,381,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall
be available for temporary employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $115,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for the operation
and maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed
one for replacement only: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7
U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, alteration, and repair of
buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided,
the cost of constructing any one building shall not exceed
$250,000, except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall
each be limited to $1,000,000, and except for ten buildings
to be constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed
$500,000 each, and the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building or $250,000,
whichever is greater: Provided further, That the limitations
on alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to
modernization or replacement of existing facilities at
Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That appropriations
hereunder shall be available for granting easements at the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, including an
easement to the University of Maryland to construct the
Transgenic Animal Facility which upon completion shall be
accepted by the Secretary as a gift: Provided further, That
the foregoing limitations shall not apply to replacement of
buildings needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21
U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That funds may be received
from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or
individual for the purpose of establishing or operating any
research facility or research project of the Agricultural
Research Service, as authorized by law.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 10, line 14 (relating to the Agricultural Research
Service), insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(reduced by $13,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 9 (relating to the commodity assistance
program), insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
{time} 2000
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my colleagues that I do
not have 150 amendments, not even 50, only 2, and I believe the
majority is going to accept one later. So this is it for me, and I
would appreciate support for this amendment.
This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney),
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). This is a
very similar amendment to the one that the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. LoBiondo) and I introduced last year, which won in the House by a
strong vote. Unfortunately, the conference committee did not support
the effort that we had made in the House.
The purpose of this amendment is to increase funding for a nutrition
program of extreme importance to many low-income senior citizens, small
children and pregnant women, and that
[[Page 10860]]
program is the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.
This year, the President requested $155 million for the Commodity
Assistance Program, which contains the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program. However, the program was funded at $14 million less than the
President's request. We are attempting now to add $10 million to the
program, which would still be $4 million less than what the President
had requested.
Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that malnutrition and hunger among
senior citizens is a serious and tragic problem in the United States.
Throughout our country, food shelters see more and more use, and
hospital administrators tell us that thousands of senior citizens who
enter hospitals in this country are suffering from malnutrition. We
know that programs like Meals on Wheels have long waiting lists and
that large numbers of seniors throughout this country are simply not
getting the nutrition that they need.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is currently operating in 20
States. Other States are on the waiting list and still more are in the
process of applying for the program. We have been told by the USDA that
unless additional funds are given to this program, there simply cannot
be an expansion, which would be a real tragedy not only for seniors,
but for pregnant women and young children who also utilize this
important program.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is offset by cutting $13 million from the
Agricultural Research Service. At a time of very, very tight and
unreasonable, in my opinion, budget caps, this particular program
received a $50 million increase this year, which brings the program up
to just over $830 million.
I am not an opponent of the Agricultural Research Service. I think
they do a lot of good. I come from an agricultural State, and they do
important work. But it seems to me that we have to put our priorities
in a little bit better place.
At a time of significant and growing hunger in the United States, it
is frankly more important to be funding nutrition programs than adding
$50 million to ag research in such programs as funding a geneticist
plant breeder for lettuce to develop red snapper agriculture,
aquaculture, to conduct golden nematode worm research and rainbow trout
research.
I do not mean to make fun of those programs. I am sure that they make
sense and are useful. But I think in terms of our priorities, when we
have seniors who are hungry and small kids who are not getting the
nutrition that they need, I think we should do better; and we can do
better by supporting this nutrition program.
I want to thank the cosponsors of this amendment, one of whom is the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the schedule has been so thrown off
today that I do not know if they are going to come and speak to this
right now. But the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey) are also cosponsors of this amendment, and I would ask
for its passage.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this, but I rise in opposition to this
amendment. All programs within the bill were put on the table as we
began to make funding decisions under the tight allocation that we had
received. No one can deny the importance of commodity assistance
programs, but to use as an offset funds from the Agricultural Research
Service to find ways to help farmers, who are less than 2 percent of
the Nation's population, to feed this country and much of the world, is
not acceptable.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, we provided about $6 million more in this
account than the President requested for the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program for fiscal year 2000 and maintained TFAP administrative
funds at $45 million. These are the only two programs within the
Commodity Assistance account.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, and this
may be the only disagreement that the chairman of the subcommittee and
I have on this bill.
I compliment the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for bringing
this amendment to us to get the full body's view on this when we vote
very shortly, and I support the amendment for several reasons.
One is, around this country, the feeding kitchens of America are
empty. We have an enormous need for additional food. Just the last two
weekends ago the letter carriers across our country did a food drive
and tried to replenish the supplies in these food banks, because this
is not close to Christmas and they have been drawn down, and with all
of the changes that have been made in welfare reform, for example, we
do have lots of people who are hungry in America tonight, most of them
women and children.
So I would say that there is great merit in the gentleman's proposal.
In addition to that, in this bill, we were unable to fund so many
worthy programs that would bring food to people, including the Senior
Nutrition Program where there had been a proposal to provide a small
subsidy so that seniors would not have to pay so much for lunches when
they go into some of their lunch programs. We were not able to include
that in this bill.
Finally, I will support in this bill and in any subsequent bills any
effort that would lift commodities off this market in order to try to
help get prices up for our farmers. This bill itself, in the body of
this bill, we were not able to provide the kind of surplus commodity
assistance that we would have hoped for. We have done some, but we just
have not done enough.
I would say to the author of the amendment, it is difficult for me to
take money from the Agricultural Research Service. I would hope that as
we move toward conference we might be able to find other ways to fund
this very worthy proposal. I will vote for the gentleman's amendment
when the time comes for all of the reasons that I have listed, but I
would hope that we might be able to find other offsets, because truly
we know that the future of American agriculture rests in research, and
our bounty is directly related to the investments we make in so many
crops.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) understands, I am not against ag research. I know that the
gentleman has had a difficult time trying to fit in all of the needs. I
do not disagree with the gentleman, and I do not disagree with the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I just think that when we have
senior citizens going into the hospitals suffering from malnutrition,
that is an issue that cannot be ignored.
I would raise that to a higher level and ask for the support of the
body in the passage of this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. I think
that a $10 million increase for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
is warranted.
I represent a district in Cleveland, Ohio, and in my district there
are many seniors who depend on programs like this for their sustenance.
There are those of us who have a prayer that we say that includes the
words, ``Give us this day our daily bread.'' This is a very humble and
simple request that people have. In America, where there are so many
people hungry, where there are so many people who hunger amidst so much
plenty, what would it matter to give a mere $10 million to help our
senior citizens have improved nutrition, to reduce the waiting lists
for Meals on Wheels, to make it possible for those millions of
Americans who rely on emergency food assistance to be able to get some
help.
We in this country have a moral obligation to provide for those who
are without. It is a work of mercy to feed
[[Page 10861]]
the hungry, and we should with regard to the great power of this
government, with the billions of dollars that are spent on so many
things that are questionable, that we have an opportunity here to take
$10 million and feed some people, give them an opportunity to be better
fed so that they do not end up in the hospital from malnutrition.
I think the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has come up with a
wonderful amendment, and while I have the greatest respect for the
committee which has created this bill, I have to say that the bill can
be improved and it can be improved with the help of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Vermont, Mr. Sanders, so that he can have a few more minutes to explain
the importance of this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his
strong support. I think the essence of the problem that we have as
serious legislators is that we are confronting a budget which in many
ways prevents us from doing the things that we have to do, and that is
not the chairman's fault and it is not the ranking member's fault. But
I think when we talk about priorities in the United States, in this
great country, in this wealthy country, how can we not address the
reality that there are senior citizens who are going to the hospital
and the administrators and doctors there are telling us they are
malnourished? We are wasting huge sums of money spending dollars on
hospital care that could have been prevented if we would provide
adequate nutrition to our senior citizens.
The same thing is true with low-income pregnant women who are giving
birth to low-weight babies.
So again, I would not argue about ag research. That is important. But
I think what we are asking for is taking $13 million out of an increase
of $50 million to use $10 million for the expansion of this commodities
program.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the Master said, ``Feed my sheep.'' This
is our challenge.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to stand tonight in support of this amendment.
This year the President requested $155 million for the Commodity
Assistance Program which contains the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program. However, this program was funded at $14 million less than the
President's request.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is currently operating in 20
States. Also, four States are on the waiting list, as are others, such
as the State of Ohio; and we believe that all people should be able to
participate in this. Too many seniors are suffering already because
they live on such tiny incomes they cannot afford to buy food or else
they are forced to choose between the life-saving prescription drugs
they need and groceries.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is often a life-saving source
of food for elderly constituents. The source of the money this is
coming from is coming from a program that is receiving ample support,
and I come from a State that has agriculture, and I do support
obviously where the money is going. But the amount of money that is
going to go into this program for the Sanders amendment is not going to
hurt the existing appropriation, it is going to do an awful lot,
really, to help our seniors. So I think it is a good amendment.
It is a senior program that makes good fiscal sense. Studies have
shown that malnourished seniors stay in the hospital nearly twice as
long as well-nourished seniors, costing thousands of dollars more per
stay. So I think it is cost-effective.
It is a good amendment, it should receive good bipartisan support. I
think it is the right thing to do, and I urge the support of my
colleagues for this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, regrettably, in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, because I think he is attempting to do something that is
proper and good, but I would point out to the gentleman that all of
these funds are very competitive with each other. We have done our
level best to fully fund the nutrition programs which make up the
majority of this bill.
As the gentleman knows, and we have worked together on funding the
Emergency Food Assistance Program, it is a very important program. We
have raised the funding for that program, the mandatory programs, food
stamps and WIC, and we have done our level best to fund those as close
to full funding as we can.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the program the gentleman
wants to add an additional $10 million to, is funded above the
President's budget request level.
So we have gone out of our way to try to find the discretionary funds
to meet the needs of these programs. We just do not have enough money
to meet everybody's priorities.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh)
and I have worked together on a number of issues, and I appreciate
where he is coming from, and we all understand the difficulty of coming
up with the money.
However, I think the gentleman is not accurate in saying that we have
funded the program higher than the President's request. I believe it is
$14 million below the President's request, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will check to verify
which one of us is accurate here, but the fact of the matter is, these
nonmandatory funds are heavily in demand by all of these programs.
{time} 2015
To take the funds from the agriculture research budget and put them
into nutrition programs may be penny wise and pound foolish, because
the agriculture research, which again, is underfunded, we cannot do
enough for the research that needs to be done, but that research, Mr.
Chairman, has increased by multiples, geometric progression increases
in our yields of crops.
If we neglect our agriculture research on things like the green
revolution varieties of wheat and corn and rice that are now feeding
the entire world, the disease resistance that we are breeding into our
crops, the new varieties of fruits and vegetables that our agriculture
research institutions produce for the consumption not only of our
citizens but of the whole world, if we continue to neglect our
research, we are not going to have nearly enough food to feed ourselves
and the rest of the world.
I understand the gentleman's desires here. Perhaps at the end of the
process, if there is a way to provide additional funds, we will try to
do that. But for the sake of this amendment, I do urge that it be
rejected and that we keep the funds in agriculture research where they
belong.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr.
Sanders' amendment, which will add needed resources for food banks. As
you know, growing numbers of Americans are turning up at our nation's
food banks--and too many of them are senior citizens.
The food banks from around the United States that I've surveyed
during the past two years report many reasons for the increase--from
the deep cuts in food stamp funding, to low-wage jobs, to an economy
that is leaving too many of our fellow citizens behind. Since last
year, 22 percent more people are turning up in their lines, the food
banks say--and many of them are going home empty-handed.
The prospect of hunger in our rich nation is troubling no matter who
it affects. Children who are poor often and rightly grab our attention,
because hunger in the growing years scars them physically and mentally.
Working people who are doing all they can to feed their families also
disturb us. And hungry senior citizens, who have given so much for
their entire lives to their families and our nation, are nothing short
of an outrage.
I saw senior citizens at Ohio food banks last year, many of them too
weak to stand and wait in long lines; all of them suffering the
indignity of being unable to feed themselves;
[[Page 10862]]
and a surprising number of them there because our healthy system has
left them no choice other than to pay for their medicine, or their
food.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program operates in only 18 states
(plus one reservation). The WIC program we know so well grew out of
this program, which now focuses on poor Americans aged 60 and older. It
was cut by $10 million in FY '99; this amendment restores this funding
and should enable the program to reach senior citizens in more states.
My own state of Ohio is eager to participate, and will do so as soon as
the needed funding is available.
No American should have to turn to food banks in the first place; and
no one who has no other choice should be turned away empty-handed. This
amendment will add needed funding for food banks that serve senior
citizens. I commend Mr. Sanders and Mr. Ney for their strong stand in
support of hungry seniors, and urge my colleagues to support it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by two five-
minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143,
noes 274, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 155]
AYES--143
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Campbell
Cannon
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Doggett
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Eshoo
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Largent
Larson
Lazio
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McInnis
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Northup
Norwood
Paul
Pease
Petri
Phelps
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Riley
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shows
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
NOES--274
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Graham
Granger
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Kleczka
Millender-McDonald
Morella
Oxley
Pallone
Reyes
Rothman
Smith (TX)
Stark
{time} 2039
Messrs. LIPINSKI, GUTIERREZ, REYNOLDS, TIERNEY, RYUN of Kansas,
TRAFICANT, and BECERRA and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. McNULTY, MARKEY, SHAW, DeFAZIO, and LARSON and Mrs. TAUSCHER
and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 155, I was
inadvertently detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yes''.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on
which further proceeding were postponed and on which the noes prevailed
by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 289, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 156]
AYES--129
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Boehner
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
[[Page 10863]]
English
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Largent
Lazio
Linder
LoBiondo
Luther
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Nadler
Northup
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
NOES--289
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Blunt
Brown (CA)
Graham
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Millender-McDonald
Morella
Oxley
Pallone
Reyes
Rothman
Smith (TX)
Stark
Weldon (PA)
{time} 2049
Messrs. KLECZKA, COOKSEY and MALONEY of Connecticut changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. COOK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 278, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 157]
AYES--139
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baird
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Campbell
Cannon
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Cook
Crane
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Inslee
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kleczka
Lazio
Linder
LoBiondo
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
McDermott
McInnis
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Myrick
Northup
Paul
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Ramstad
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shows
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Upton
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wu
NOES--278
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (FL)
[[Page 10864]]
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Brown (CA)
Cox
Dicks
Graham
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Largent
McCollum
Millender-McDonald
Oxley
Pallone
Reyes
Rothman
Smith (TX)
Stark
{time} 2058
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Sherwood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1906)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 150, EDUCATION
LAND GRANT ACT
Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-164) on the resolution (H. Res. 189) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 150) to amend the Act popularly
known as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to authorize disposal
of certain public lands or national forest lands to local education
agencies for use for elementary or secondary schools, including public
charter schools, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
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.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I missed rollcall votes number
147 and 148 on Monday, May 24, 1999, because I was attending a funeral
of a dear friend.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both of these
votes.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1905,
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
Mr. DREIER (during special order of Mr. Green of Wisconsin), from the
Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 106-165)
on the resolution (H. Res. 190) providing for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes,
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
DAIRY PRICING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about
an important issue of fairness, fairness to farmers, fairness to
consumers, and fairness to taxpayers. I know that ``fairness'' is an
overused term. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it has never been more
important or more true than it is on the issue that I want to talk
about tonight, and that is the issue of dairy pricing.
For the last six decades, we have had a Government mandated system of
dairy price supports. It began in the late 1930s because dairy
producers had a difficult time getting their goods to consumers in a
timely way. They had a difficult time because of technology in meeting
consumption needs. We did not, quite frankly, have effective
infrastructure or enough technology to transport our surplus to States
that had deficit in production.
Those days are over, however. We have the refrigeration, we have the
infrastructure to transport dairy products from States like Wisconsin
anywhere in America overnight. As a result, the outdated dairy price
system, the Federal order system, no longer makes sense.
Wisconsin dairy farmers and Wisconsin communities are being ravaged,
they are being destroyed by the current Federal order system. In the
last 8 years, Wisconsin has lost over 10,000 dairy farms. Wisconsin has
lost 2,000 dairy farms in each of the last 2 years. We have lost more
dairy farms in the last 8 years than most States ever have.
Now, I am here tonight to speak to my colleagues, quite frankly, not
on behalf of dairy farmers. Dairy farmers are not looking for our
sympathy. They are a tough bunch. This is a tough life-style. They know
that. They have been fighting uphill all of their lives. They are not
looking for sympathy. They are looking for fairness.
More importantly, quite frankly, I would think to the Members of this
body is the fact that this unfair system not only hurts our dairy
farmers, my family farmers in Wisconsin, of which there are 22,000
remaining, but it is also unfair to consumers.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize, it is important to know that
the outdated Federal order system artificially inflates the price of
milk. And as more farmers go out of business, and as I just said, we
are losing farmers each and every year, the more farmers who go out of
business, the higher that price will be.
The Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, a
number of taxpayer groups, groups that do not necessarily have a
natural stake in the fight over a dairy policy, they have reached an
interesting conclusion. After looking at the Federal order system, they
have concluded that the Federal order system that we have had in this
country for six decades is little more than a tax on milk. It is a milk
tax that consumers are paying all across this land. It is a milk tax to
the tune of about $1 billion each and every year.
Now, the reason I come forward today is because of a battle that I
believe is going to be on this floor tomorrow and, quite frankly and
unfortunately, probably on this floor for weeks and months to come.
Some weeks ago, Secretary Dan Glickman proposed a final order on the
Federal order system for dairies. And in that Federal order, Secretary
Glickman proposed a very minor change to the Federal order system, a
very minor, modest change. And it is true, it will benefit Wisconsin
farmers, dairy farmers, but again in a very modest way.
{time} 2115
Now, it may be ironic to some of you that I come here today to
support a proposal from a Democrat administration. But I come forward
because this
[[Page 10865]]
issue of the Federal order system of the milk tax is not about
Republican versus Democrat, it is not about conservative versus
liberal. It is about doing the right thing. And I come here tonight to
argue that we need to support Secretary Glickman's plan. Modest as it
is, it is a step in the right direction.
Now, the Federal order system for dairy is one of the most
complicated systems that you can possibly imagine. It is full of
acronyms, it is full of terminology that the average person cannot
understand, let alone a Member of Congress who may serve on the
Committee on Agriculture or who comes from a dairy State. If you tried
to explain to your constituents that this system that we have in place
creates a price on milk based not upon productivity, based not upon
quality, based not upon efficiency, but instead based merely on the
distance that a producer is from the city of Eau Claire, Wisconsin,
your constituents would not believe you. They would think that you were
making it up. The sad reality is that that is the truth.
We have a dairy system in this Nation for which government mandates
prices for fluid milk again based merely upon geography. That is wrong.
It is unfair to farmers, it is unfair to consumers, it inflates the
price of milk and, quite frank,ly it is un-American because it is
contrary to our free enterprise system.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
I know that he shares many of the concerns that I bring forward
tonight.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and
especially thank him for requesting time for this special order
tonight. I suspect there are an awful lot of Americans who may tune us
in and certainly most of our colleagues who will be watching in their
offices or are still here on the House floor who really do not
understand this whole milk marketing order system. Frankly, having
studied it now for about 5 years, I honestly cannot say that I
completely understand it, either.
But I would correct the gentleman on one fact, and that is, he said
it is priced purely on how far you are from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. That
is partially right. It is the only commodity I think in the United
States, maybe in the world, that is priced not only based on where it
comes from, it is also priced on what it will go into. Milk that goes
into cheese is of lower value than milk that goes into a bottling plant
and is sold for fluid milk for drinking.
There are actually four classes of milk. Class one is milk that goes
into liquid dairy products that are drinkable. Class two are spoonable;
that would be things like yogurt. Class three is cheese, and class four
is dry powdered milk. So we have four classes, and it is all priced
based upon where it comes from. And the farther you are from Eau
Claire, Wisconsin, the more the dairy farmer gets for their milk. The
closer you are to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the less you get.
And then if you are at an area that has cheese plants and most of the
milk goes into cheese, you get a lower price still.
In my opinion, it is the most indefensible thing that the Federal
Government ever created. It may have made sense back in 1934. In my
opinion, it makes no economic sense today.
Let me just show in this chart that I have next to me, and it sort of
illustrates the differentials we are talking about. These are the
producer class one blended price benefits per hundred weight. That is
the way milk is priced. Milk to dairy farmers, and we have got a former
dairy farmer sitting here in the second row and maybe he can talk a
little bit about it, maybe he does not even understand how his cream
checks were calculated.
But if you lived, for example, in the northeastern part of the United
States, your differential came to about $1.40. If you lived in the
Appalachian region, that average price was $2.34. If you lived down in
Florida, that worked out to $3.32. But if you live in the area that the
gentleman from Wisconsin and myself come from, in the upper Midwest,
you can see that over here it is only 27 cents. That is what we are
talking about, ultimately.
We are not asking for special privilege, for special benefits; we are
not even asking to receive equal pay for equal milk; but we would like
to equalize it much more than it is today.
The second chart that I have I think illustrates it more
geographically and what we are talking about. The country is divided up
into all of these milk marketing order regions. For example, these are
the average blended prices for current Federal milk marketing order
areas. In the Pacific Northwest, that average price last month I
believe was $14.75. If you are in the upper Midwest, that is, basically
Wisconsin, Minnesota, parts of the Dakotas, you are talking $13.57.
Now, on the other hand, if you lived in eastern Colorado and produced
milk, your average blended price last month was $15.16. And if you
lived down here in Florida, that price is $16.82. If you look at this,
at one time it may have made some sense because the area around Eau
Claire, Wisconsin, was considered the dairy capital of the United
States and in many respects the dairy capital of the world, and we are
still privileged that in this region we produce about 30 percent of the
milk in the United States.
But as I say, it may have made some sense back in 1934; that was
before the days of refrigeration, that was before the days of the kind
of transportation, the interstate highway system that we have, but
today we can move milk 1,200 miles in 24 hours. So the whole idea that
we need this regional balkanization of the United States as it relates
to dairy production is just crazy.
Again, back to the point that my colleague from Wisconsin made about
the basic unfairness of this: How can you say to dairy farmers in
Glenville, Minnesota, that you are only entitled to $13.57 for your
milk, but the same quality, the exact same quality of milk in the
Southeast is worth $16.13. That is a difference of over $2. When you
are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds of milk per month,
you are starting to talk real differences.
I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules is approaching the
microphone and perhaps we should yield to him for a moment.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my very good friends for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friends for their very,
very hard work and wish them well in their proceedings here.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. We would like to thank the chairman and we hope that
he will drink more milk. June is Dairy Month, so enjoy as much as you
can.
Mr. DREIER. I will tell my friend that I am a huge dairy consumer.
Ice cream is my favorite.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to thank the chairman.
As I mentioned earlier, we have been pushing now for 60 years to get
this whole milk marketing order system reformed. Finally, under the
leadership of former Congressman Gunderson from Wisconsin, we finally
got included in the ag bill a couple of years ago a requirement that
the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Glickman, was forced to come up
with a new plan to begin to bring some equity to this whole milk
marketing order system. To his credit, he did come up with a plan that
frankly some of us are not completely happy with.
I want to point out these colors if I could. I promise not to take
too much time here, but this essentially reflects some of the changes
that would occur under the plan that Secretary Glickman came out with.
If you look at this, actually Minnesota and Wisconsin lose under the
Glickman proposal.
And so we are not asking for completely equal pay for equal milk, but
we are asking to level the playing field. The net practical effect of
the Glickman plan is, it does eliminate some of the differences.
Relative to some of the other areas of the State, if you just go by
winners and losers, we lose less than some of the other States, but
that is because they already are getting more than we are getting.
So we are prepared to accept what Secretary Glickman has proposed in
a spirit of compromise, because at least
[[Page 10866]]
in general it moves to a leveling of the way that the milk marketing
orders are set up.
Before I yield back to my colleague from Wisconsin, I want to play a
little visualization game with some of my colleagues. If you could,
just close your eyes and think of all of the products that the pricing
is based upon some geographic location. Just think about that. Well,
the answer is, there is only one. Only milk.
I think we have got a cartoon from, I believe it is from the St. Paul
Pioneer Press. Maybe the gentleman from Wisconsin wants to talk a
little bit about it. Maybe it is easier for me to talk about it because
I have got it right here.
But could we imagine a system where all computers would be price
adjusted according to their distance from Seattle? We could not imagine
that, could we? Could we imagine a system where all country music
should be price adjusted according to how far it is away from
Nashville, Tennessee? Where all oranges should be price adjusted
according to their distance from Florida?
But we do have a system where all milk is priced based on how far
away it is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Now, the question at the bottom is, which of these is actual Federal
policy. It is amazing when you stop to think about it. It is the only
product where the price is based on some arbitrary geographic location.
Secondly, it is based on what that product is going to go into. In
fact, up in northern Minnesota where we produce an awful lot of iron
ore, they produce taconite pellets. These taconite pellets, no one
could imagine that some Federal bureaucrat would sit up there in front
of an iron mine and say, well, these taconite pellets are going to go
into automobiles so they will be priced at this level, and these
taconite pellets are going to go into steel lockers and therefore the
price will be something else. That would be a crazy, absurd idea. But
the truth of the matter is that is exactly what happens to milk. It is
all done by bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C.
Once again, we are here on the floor of the House tonight arguing
this case because farmers in the upper Midwest have been dealing with
this antiquated, in fact Justice Anton Scalia has referred to this
system as ``Byzantine.''
We have dealt with this Byzantine system for 60 years. Finally,
Secretary Glickman has come out with a plan which is not perfect,
actually in some respects it still punishes dairy farmers in the upper
Midwest, but at least it levels the playing field, at least it is
fairer for dairy farmers regardless of where they are than the system
we have today. I congratulate him for it.
I am willing, in a spirit of bipartisanship, to move forward with the
plan that the Secretary came up with.
I will yield back to the gentleman from Wisconsin and maybe we can
talk a little more about this cartoon. As I say, it would be a whole
lot funnier if it was not true.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank my friend and colleague from
Minnesota. I think he has pointed out again just the absurdity of the
system and that cartoon does show it.
Think about this. We are entering the year 2000, the next millennium,
yet we have a system for the production and consumption and
distribution of milk that is based upon economic realities around World
War II. Think about how much technology has changed since then.
Beyond that, we are at a time in our history in which Members of this
body from both sides of the aisle are emphasizing the need to open up
borders, to break down barriers for trade all across this world. Yet
here in America, in supposedly the bastion of entrepreneurial
capitalism, we have a system that creates barriers, that blocks the
flow, creates disincentives for the flow of dairy products across State
lines and across regional lines. This is counter to everything that we
stand for in America today.
Again, I want to come back and emphasize the point, this system is
terrible for the dairy farmers in States like Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Again, over the last 8 years, we have lost more dairy farmers than most
States ever had.
But beyond that, this is bad for consumers. Under this system, we are
driving up the price of milk. We are also encouraging large corporate
farms, which are buying up the small family farmer.
{time} 2130
If that trend continues, we are going to see dairy production in the
hands of only a few, and then we will have a true monopoly on the
supply of milk. Then we will see milk prices rise, and then milk will
no longer be the cheap and wonderful fluid that it is, available to all
today.
This is also, this system is bad for taxpayers. It drives up the cost
on programs like the school meal program, it drives up the costs for
families on food stamps, reduces the value of food stamps. This system,
almost any way to look at it, is absurd, it is un-American, and it is
wrong.
Now we are not going to change things overnight, we are not going to
change things here tonight, but we do want to make our case to the
American people. It is a long uphill battle, but it is certainly no
longer and no more uphill than our dairy farmers are facing.
We want to start the process tonight, and as has been stated before,
it is a long battle that we have ahead.
I yield my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding, and
again I thank him for having this special order.
As my colleagues know, if this regional differentiation was not bad
enough, and if the fact that we price milk to the producer based on not
only how far they are from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, but what ultimately
that milk is going to go into, if that were not bad enough, we have one
other little wrinkle that has made things worse. It is called regional
compacts.
Now this is the only area, again, that I can think of where we have
allowed States literally to go together and hold out imports of dairy
products from other parts of the country. In other words, they have
created their own little fiefdoms.
As my colleagues know, at the very time, as was mentioned by the
gentleman from Wisconsin, at the very time we are saying to Europe and
we are saying to Asia and we are saying to our trading partners all
around the world it is time to bring down those trade barriers, we need
open markets and open trade, we have problems trading even with certain
regions of the country.
Right now there is a Northeast Dairy Compact, and unfortunately some
of our colleagues, even as we speak, are trying to work out new
compacts to try and create even worse regional differentiations between
the regions and to keep out imports from other parts of the country.
As my colleagues know, this seems, and the gentleman mentioned the
word ``un-American''. At the very time that we are trying to break down
trade barriers to China and to Asia, we are constructing trade barriers
right here in the United States, and in my opinion it is just an
outrage, and so the only thing we can do is come to the House floor,
offer amendments, talk about this, talk about the fairness, and
hopefully in the long light of history sooner or later these trade
barriers are going to be knocked down. We are going to see open trade
not only with Europe, but with the Northeast as well.
The problem with compacts in my opinion is they do violate, if not
the letter, certainly the spirit of the Commerce Clause in the
Constitution, and frankly, had they not been legislatively approved,
there is a very good chance that the Supreme Court would have thrown
them out. That debate is going to get very heated because, as I say,
not only does the Northeast want to expand its dairy compact, they are
talking about a regional compact in the Southeast, perhaps extending as
far west as into Kansas.
And we joked with some of the supporters of those compacts. We would
be happy to allow those compacts, if they would just allow the upper
Midwest in. I mean, if we could be getting the same
[[Page 10867]]
price, for example, that they are already getting in New York and New
Jersey, and you see by this chart $13.57 for us, $15.40 in New York and
New Jersey. The New England Compact States are getting $15.61. Now our
dairy farmers would love to be in that compact if that meant that they
got $15.61 for their milk.
That is the difference. Again, it is unfair, and if the system is
already convoluted and complicated, the terrible tragedy is there are
people here in the Congress today, well-intentioned Members, but they
are trying to make the situation even worse, even more complicated,
even more unfair.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what my colleague, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), points out is something important, and
that is that there are really two different elements to this overall
fight that we have on the dairy front.
There is, first of all, the problem of the Federal order system,
which is what we began talking about tonight, and that is the
differential system that does base the price of milk largely on the
proximity to Eau Claire.
In fact, it was interesting. That is a fight that my predecessor has
been fighting and so many men and women over the years have been
fighting. The Agriculture Commissioner from your State, in Minnesota,
pointed out that dairy farmers in Minnesota have become so frustrated
with their inability to change that system that they actually think it
might be easier to physically relocate the City of Eau Claire to the
West Coast than actually making a reform to it. That is the Federal
order system.
But the second part of this, and it is a problem, as you rightly
pointed out, which is equally bad, it is the problem of the compacts
because the compacts do serve to create trade barriers between States
and between regions, and Citizens Against Government Waste have
calculated that the compacts are a major tax on milk that will drive up
the cost of milk for so many consumers in this country.
As my colleagues know, we are the most effective dairy producing
region in the whole world in the upper Midwest, and yet because of the
combination of the compacts, because of the combination of the compacts
with the Federal order system, we are being punished for that very
productivity which we have.
And as the gentleman pointed out also, the dairy farmers in Minnesota
and Wisconsin are not asking for any favors. They do not want favors.
They do not want sympathy. They just want the chance to compete. They
know that if they are given that equal chance to compete, they will
succeed. They will succeed vis-a-vis farmers in America, but also
farmers all across the world.
That is all they are looking for, and in this land of opportunity it
seems to be the least that we can do.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, talking
about what this really ultimately costs to consumers as well, the
estimate that we have of the cost of the compact to New England
consumers has been $47 million.
Now some people will say that milk is not a price-sensitive item and
that, as my colleagues know, people, consumers will continue to drink
about the same amount of milk regardless of the price. I am not sure I
really believe that, and in fact I have had some of my friends at the
Dairy Association try to tell me that. It seems to me that if you over-
price milk in certain regions of the country, the net practical effect
is you are going to drive down consumption, and what we desperately,
and one of the real problems with what I call the Balkanization, and we
are having this war going on in the Balkans right now where that term
came from, but basically what we have is Balkanization of the United
States as it relates to milk.
The real tragedy is the biggest war that is going on right now for
the milk industry is this competition with the soft drink industry, and
the soft drink industry is out there, and they are marketing and they
are competing, and they are vicious on price and they are vicious on
advertising, and they are constantly taking a bigger and bigger share
of the beverage market, if my colleagues will, and at the very time, it
seems to me, that the milk industry ought to be speaking with one voice
and ought to be working together and figuring out how they can get a
bigger market share relative to the soft drink industry, at that very
time they should be working together. Unfortunately, we have all of
these regions working against each other, and the net practical effect,
of course, is that we continue to lose market share relative to
CocaCola, Pepsi Cola, Mountain Dew and all of those other soft drinks
that are out there competing particularly for the younger people's
market.
And so there are so many things that need to be said positively about
the milk industry, the dairy industry, and unfortunately we spend so
much of our time here in Washington fighting with each other over this
regionalization of the way pricing is structured. It is a terrible
mistake, and it has cost the consumers.
Let me also add that, as my colleagues know, a lot of the argument
for this system and even for the regional compacts has been that it
will save small dairy farmers. Well, over the last 10 years we have
lost something like 10,000 dairy farmers. As my colleagues know, if
that is the definition of success, we cannot afford much more of that.
What we really ultimately need to do is work together to find
fairness, to find common ground, to work together to expand markets for
our dairy products, and we are not just talking about fluid milk
either. I think there is a tremendous market worldwide for cheese
products and other dairy products which we can produce so well, so
efficiently, with great quality here in the United States. But
unfortunately, as I say, we spend too much of our time from a national
perspective not looking for additional markets for our dairy farmers
both here in the United States and around the world, but fighting
amongst ourselves over this antiquated, Byzantine, unfair milk
marketing order system.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on 2
points that the gentleman made.
It is ironic that at this point in our history where as Americans we
are so health conscious, we keep talking about dietary changes and the
things that we should be doing especially for young people in trying to
encourage good health practices, at that very time when we should be
encouraging the free flow of milk all around the Nation and keeping
milk prices low, we are actually reinforcing a system that does just
the opposite. We are making milk a healthy, wonderful product. We are
making milk more expensive than its counterparts. We are actually
encouraging people to shy away from milk and to go towards such
products as soda, and no one is going to say that soda rivals milk for
health value. That is a great irony.
Secondly, I know a lot of people out there listening tonight are
saying to themselves, well, if the price of milk is going to go up,
that is okay if it goes to help the family farm. Well, perhaps the
greatest irony of all is that the compact system, the Federal order
system, hurts the small farmer to the advantage of the corporate
farmer. Every analysis I have seen shows that the lion's share of the
value of any increase in the price of milk does not go to that small
family farmer. Instead, it goes to the large corporate farm.
Nothing against the corporate farms, but they are pushing the small
farmer out, and again, as we put more and more of the means of
production for dairy products in the hands of those large corporate
farmers, we are losing control, and then one day when we only have milk
being produced by a few, then we will truly see milk prices go up. We
will have a true monopoly.
So for those out there who are saying, ``I am willing to pay more if
it helps the family farm in Minnesota or in Wisconsin,'' the sad
reality is it does not. Instead it pushes them out of business. We lost
2,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin last year, 2,000 dairy farms in
Wisconsin the year before. We have lost 10,000 over the last 8 years.
We have
[[Page 10868]]
lost 50 percent of all dairy farms lost in the Nation over the last
decade were lost in the upper Midwest in States like the gentleman's
and mine.
So, people may be thinking that they are helping out dairy farmers
with these higher prices. The sad reality is they are not. They are
not. If anything, they are accelerating the decline of the family farm,
and that is a great tragedy.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, if you look
at this purple section here, we are losing an average of three dairy
farm families every single day, and as my colleagues know, as I said
earlier, if the definition, if this program was designed to protect the
small dairy farm, I mean by its very definition it has been an abysmal
failure. We cannot afford to continue this policy much longer.
And the gentleman is also exactly right that ultimately,
unfortunately, unless we have some real reform of this system and at
least have some fairness, and we cannot guarantee that some of these
smaller dairy farmers are not going to go out of business. And I will
be honest, some of them go out of business just because of quality of
life.
I mean there is nobody who works harder than that dairy farmer who
gets up every morning at 5 o'clock to milk 60 cows and then has to
repeat the process that afternoon. I mean it is one of the hardest
lives that anybody can take on, but it should not be made unfair by a
Federal milk marketing order system which penalizes someone just
because they happen to be from the upper Midwest.
Now in this great debate, and my colleague is going to learn the
longer he is here in this business and in this city, when you talk
about, and I do not even particularly like the term leveling the
playing field. Actually I just like to talk about fairness. All we want
is fairness. But many people will use the term ``leveling the playing
field.'' The truth of the matter is, in any debate about leveling the
playing field there is at least half of the people in that debate who
do not want to level the playing field because they have an advantage,
and they want to keep the status quo.
But even in some of those areas where they currently have a huge
advantage, like the Southeast and down in Florida, even into Texas and
over into New Mexico, the further away you get from Eau Claire,
Wisconsin, I think even those people have to acknowledge that at the
end of the day milk ought to be treated like almost everything else,
and it ought to be priced more or less based on what the market will
yield.
Now I am fully in favor of putting some kind of a minimum price under
the floor of milk. In fact, I have introduced a bill this year to put a
floor of at least 10.35.
{time} 2145
I think there is a need to create some kind of a job absorber in case
there are market aberrations which would drive the price of milk too
low, but at the other end of the spectrum, part of the thing that
happens with this also is in some respects, it keeps milk from going
up. If one cannot expand markets, if one limits oneself in their
ability to get into Asian markets with cheese and other dairy exports,
ultimately one limits their ability to increase net farm income, and
particularly farm income as it relates to dairy producers.
So this is a bad system, a bad system for dairy producers. It is bad
because it causes conflict among the regions when we ought to be
working together. It is a bad system because it ultimately costs
consumers in some areas more than they should have to spend for the
milk that they buy, and it really has done almost nothing to protect
the small dairy farmer.
So from every perspective I think this has been an abysmal failure.
The time has come, even though, as I said earlier, the plan that
Secretary Glickman came up with is certainly not perfect; and frankly,
on a net basis, we still lose under this plan, but we lose less than we
are losing today.
So those of us in the upper Midwest, from Wisconsin, Minnesota, parts
of the Dakotas, we are prepared to accept the Secretary's plan. We
think it should be allowed to go into effect, and frankly, we think we
should do what the Congress said 2 years ago and then again repeated
last year, and that is to allow the compacts to expire.
They were designed originally only as an experiment which would last
a year, and part of that experiment was to find out if they could curb
the number of small dairy farms that were going out of business. The
evidence is in, the evidence is clear; they have not done that. They
have cost consumers more money. They have increased the number of
corporate farms on every front; in my opinion, the compacts have been
an abysmal failure.
We should allow them to do what the agreement originally was, which
is just keep all ends of the bargain, move ahead with the dairy reform
that Secretary Glickman has come out with, and end these crazy compacts
and do not expand them to other States.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The
gentleman has been fighting this fight a lot longer than I have, and I
applaud his efforts.
I guess, just to wrap up and summarize, as the gentleman has pointed
out, Secretary Glickman's order is not perfect; and for those of us in
Minnesota and Wisconsin, we would argue it is far from it, and it is a
very small, modest step. But at least it is a step in the right
direction.
It recognizes that the long-standing system, standing since 1937, of
Federal orders and compacts is bad for farmers, driving our family
farms out of business; it is bad for consumers because it inflates the
costs of milk, it adds a milk tax in so many ways; and finally, it is
counter to free enterprise, free enterprise not just in the
manufacturing sector, not just in the service sector, but even in the
agricultural sector. It is the only agricultural product treated like
this.
So it is bad on all counts. It is time to make a larger change, but
at least to support Secretary Glickman's proposal, let that come on
line, make a small but positive step and offer some hope to our
farmers.
____________________
PROGRAMS THAT WORK FOR EDUCATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to spend some time
with my colleagues talking about an issue that is important not only to
me and my colleagues on the minority side, but I think to all Members
of this Congress and certainly to the people of America.
The topic is education, an issue that we talk an awful lot about, but
I want to talk this evening and share with my colleagues some examples
of not only programs that work, but also people that are doing
outstanding things for our children, certainly in my district and in my
State.
I want to talk a little bit about an innovative program that I
visited a couple of weeks ago in Greensboro. It was a program called
Reading Together. One of the things that I learned before I came to
Congress, and I think we have all known it for a long time, but
certainly it was pointed out to me very vividly while I was
superintendent of schools, if one can teach a child to read by the time
they are in the third grade, one has accomplished a great deal as to
what we need to do to help a child learn and do well, and certainly
make it in school and in the world.
The Reading Together program is a program that is being piloted in a
number of areas; I think it is in Pennsylvania, but also in Greensboro.
What that program does is takes mentor students from the upper grades,
and in this case they were fifth graders, and on a regular basis they
are trained, they work with a trained teacher, and they come down and
work with children who have difficulty reading in the earlier grades,
normally in the first and second grade, and they become not only
mentors, but they become tutors.
I watched them for over an hour, and in this process, as those
children
[[Page 10869]]
worked and worked with young people, they had been trained; and when
they finished the reading, they debriefed the young person they were
working with, and then when the second graders went back to their
classes, the fifth graders met with their teacher. They then were
debriefed, talked about what had happened, how each child had done,
made notes, kept a journal.
These are things that very few adults do, and here we have young
people doing them. I hear so many times people talk about our young
people. They need to get out in the schools and see what is happening,
the good things that they are doing, the outstanding jobs our teachers
are doing. So I thought this was a good time to talk about these good
things, as we are now all across America beginning to close down the
school year.
In my State, some of the schools were out last Friday and others will
finish up this Friday, and many Members like myself will be speaking at
commencement exercises. I did last week and will again this week.
But I would like to share a program that really is working and making
a difference. It is a pilot program that had been started really before
I came to Congress, and it is working with some money through the U.S.
Department of Education on a direct grant, and it is making a
difference. The reading scores have improved dramatically.
Students really work their way out of these classes and into the
regular class. So that is what it is all about. We give a child some
help, and then they can help themselves.
Mr. Chairman, my friend from Maryland (Mr. (Cummings) has been out in
his schools working, and is a great leader for education and a leader
in this Congress. He has some excellent examples, and I would like to
yield to him so he may share those with us.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding
and thank him for his leadership in the Congress in reminding all of us
how important education is.
Mr. Speaker, I am a great believer in Dr. James Comer. Dr. Comer has
a philosophy which I truly believe in, and he talks about the fact that
a child can have the will, a child can have the genetic ability, but if
a child does not have the opportunity, then that child is in trouble,
he is going to have problems.
I look at my own life. I started it off in special education. I was
told I would never be able to read or write. But because of
opportunity, because there were teachers who stood by me and told me
what I could be instead of telling me what I could not be, because of
my parents who were involved, and I know we are going to be talking
about parents tonight and how important that is; but I can remember, I
say to the gentleman, that when my father, who worked at Davidson
Chemical Company, he would come to our PTA meetings. And he used to
work in the evenings and his boss would let him come to the PTA
meetings in his overalls, all greasy, but he would come in there and
talk to the teachers and participate in the PTA meetings, and he played
a significant role in our lives, and the teachers expected him to be
there.
But just going back to some of the things that the gentleman was
saying a little while earlier, I too have been involved in these
commencements and I have seen so many of our children who go through so
much difficulty to get through high school and they make it, and it
just makes one feel good to see those young people marching down that
aisle and to know that they have truly accomplished something.
I think it is important for us as Members of Congress to do what the
gentleman said that he does and I do and I am sure many of our other
Members do, and that is to celebrate our children's lives, to celebrate
their victories.
I think I was telling the gentleman a little bit earlier about a
wonderful contest that we had in our State whereby our Department of
Children, Youth and Family, the Governor's Department of Children,
Youth and Family, sponsored a contest for the school that read the most
books. Out of our 24 counties, I am very pleased to say, and out of our
eight congressional districts, there was a school in my district that
read the most books, an elementary school. The school is not located in
the most affluent area, but these children made a decision that they
were going to work hard; and they read these books and they had a way
of making sure that they examined them, and they had to do little
reports and whatever.
But I say to the gentleman, I am going to go by there when they have
the awards to celebrate with them, to say, hey, you did a good job. I
think that those are the kinds of things that are so important.
Again, I emphasize that I want to thank the gentleman, because as we
watch the gentleman on this floor and all of the things that he does
behind the scenes, his coming to this Congress has been very
significant in that he has lighted the way we view education; and the
gentleman has put it definitely out on the front burner and has made it
something that is extremely significant, reminding us that if we
support our children and work with them, we can make a difference.
So I am going to yield back to the gentleman, but I will be here for
a while, so I look forward to just listening him.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the reading
program, and I want to share one with him, if I may. It was something
that we started maybe 2 years ago, and I shared this with the gentleman
earlier.
First, though, I want to tell a little story. We gave out an award we
call the Golden Key Award for parent involvement, for the parents who
got involved in the PTA, because I think this is the key to improving
the quality of our schools and helping the teachers get the parents
back in the schools.
So that led to the issue of how do we engage the parents with
students and really help the reading, because I believe that is
important.
When I came to Congress and was no longer superintendent, I wanted to
keep that going. So we started what we call a Congressional Reading
Program, for lack of a better word; I could not think of a better one.
So what we do is, I have encouraged the students to read. I told them
last year, if they would read 100 books, I would personally come and
deliver a certificate.
Well, I figured there would be a few books read, and I had just an
outstanding principal in Anderson Creek. We had a number of others
involved. We had probably a half a dozen schools in our pilot, but we
only do it for kindergarten, first and second graders. We did not want
to go much higher than that, realizing how many it would be. So we kept
about six schools involved. They did an outstanding job.
The reason I mention Anderson Creek is because they were one of our
first pilots. They did it again last year. They must have had 300, and
some children read 100 books, at least 100. Some of them read as many
as 200 and 300. The significant thing was that when I went to give
those awards a year ago, there were probably 400 parents, grandparents,
aunts and uncles that filled up the gym.
So I will go back this year to give the awards again. This year,
there were 481 children who read at least 100 books. Several of the
children had read more than 500 books. I mean, we are talking about
children reading two and three books a day. They were not very big. We
did not tell them how thick the books had to be. But the interesting
thing was the number of kindergartners in this school, a lot of them,
they received an award.
Well, it is quite obvious to me that kindergartners, very few can
read when they start, they do not read. But guess who read the books?
The parents or the grandparents or the aunts or uncles, whoever. But
what we do is, we get a significant adult involved with that child
early and then we get the linkage to the school.
So this year I delivered 481 certificates. We had more parents in the
gym than it would hold. They were standing outside. They stood in line,
a lot of them stood up, because they did not have seats, for almost 2
hours because I stood up for 2 hours and handed out the certificates
and shook the hand of every child in that school.
[[Page 10870]]
Mr. Speaker, I only tell that story because I think every Member can
do something like that.
We ought to honor and encourage our children. It is not enough to
stand on the floor of the House and point out the problems; there are
plenty of problems in the world. But I think we need to go and honor
and reward the good things that are happening.
I have always believed that if one rewards successes, one will get
more. If you let people know you encourage good things, more good
things will happen.
I was so pleased because I left there that day, and of course my back
was sore from having to bend over to shake hands. When one is 6 feet, 6
inches and shaking hands with little folks, one gets sore, but I felt
so good. I was late for the next school; I had to deliver more
certificates.
We are now going to expand it.
But these are the kinds of things all of us can do. It is not very
creative, and the cost of a little certificate is not much, but for
some of those children it was so important. We could tell in talking
with the children and watching their parents who came up to take the
photographs.
The neat thing was the principal, a lady by the name of Alice Cobb,
who is just an outstanding leader and a great educator, she was smart
enough to understand how important it was to her children.
{time} 2200
So she had a video camera going, digital video camera, through all of
it so she could photograph every child in the video. Of course, as we
know, one can print that out on paper. She sent me a whole stack of
stuff she had done.
I know the type of person she was, that she had given every child a
photograph when they got their certificate. There are some things that
we do not think about sometimes. Those of us who are in public office
appreciate being acknowledged. Just think what we will do for a plaque
or certificate. So a child will do good things, and schools understand
that.
I hear people sometimes belittle some of the good things teachers do
and call it woman fusses. If you are a child and you need someone to
say you look good today when you do not feel good, when you are not
real sure you look good, someone to tell you you are a nice child or
they love you when nobody at home may be telling you that, it may make
the difference in that child's life. All of us can talk about things
like that to make a difference.
We have to require the academics of every child, make them achieve
the most they can do. We do that in North Carolina. We require it. We
assess each child. We have a tough curriculum. But at the same time,
all of us need to be loved, and every child needs that. If you do that,
you encourage, you give them love and you give them tough love when you
have to, you can get a lot.
That is what the gentleman is talking about with the program he was
just sharing in his district. We can do a lot of those things.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I agree with
him. As the gentleman was talking, I was thinking to myself that we
spend a lot of time on this floor and we spend a lot of time in
committee, but the kind of things that the gentleman is talking about
costs very little.
We are always worried about how much money we are spending, spending.
We just allocated quite a bit of money for the war in Kosovo. But the
fact is, is that taking some time, just taking some time and
celebrating, that is what we are doing. First of all, we are
encouraging our children to read. Then when they have done that, we
take time to celebrate their victories.
I have often said to parents in my district that there is nothing
greater that we can do as adults, nothing greater than creating
positive memories in the minds of children.
One of the things that I have to always remind myself of is that
children think differently than we do. Those certificates will last
those children until they die. They will go with them. That is
something that they can look back on and say that ``I was recognized by
one of 435 Members of the House of Representatives.'' Not a lot of
children in our country can say that. That is very significant.
I have given certificates to children, and then parents will let me
know, grandmothers let me know, ``You know what? You presented a
certificate to my child 7 years ago, and it is still up there on my
child's wall. It is up there on that wall to remind my child that she
was recognized or he was recognized at an early age.''
That leads me to another point. I would like to really have the
gentleman's comments on this. I had an opportunity to visit a school
not very long ago where a teacher, the principal said ``We really want
you to see our best teacher.'' We had gone through several classrooms.
My staff and I had gone through several classrooms.
When we got to this last classroom, it was a second grade class, and
this was on a Monday. So the principal said, ``Well, Ms. Jones, what
are you teaching today?'' She said, ``Well, I am teaching the material
that we tested on Friday, this past Friday.'' So the principal said,
``Well, why are you doing that? I mean you already had the test.''
The teacher said something that will stick in the DNA of every cell
of my brain forever. She said, ``Every child in my class should have an
A, and not everybody got an A.'' That really touched me, because I mean
she got it. She understood. She wanted all of her children to rise. She
did not want some As, some Bs, some Cs and some Ds. She made it clear
that ``I am going to make sure that all of my children rise so that
they can move on to the next level.''
I think sometimes what happens is we are so busy trying to categorize
our children that maybe, just maybe we do a disservice. One of the
things that research has shown over and over again is that a lot of our
children, the children that we talk about, the little kindergartners
and the first graders, they have so much enthusiasm and they are so
anxious to learn. Even when they are in that little 0 to 3, 2 and 3-
year-old range, they are like little sponges and they are just grabbing
information, and they are excited and jumping up and down.
But research has shown, as they get a little bit older, get to that
fourth and fifth grade, a lot of times that enthusiasm for some reason
goes down. I mean the gentleman from North Carolina having been an
educator and the head of education for his State, I would just like to
have his comments on that.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Maryland is
absolutely correct. I have often said that children come to public
schools across this country, and certainly in my State, from a number
of backgrounds; and they do not all come.
This is where I get frustrated. I used to get frustrated at the State
level, and I get frustrated here with some of my colleagues when they
want to talk about and start criticizing the schools, because when they
start doing that, they are criticizing our children.
My colleagues have to be careful because schools are children and the
professionals that are trying to help them. They come from a variety of
backgrounds, from a variety of experiences. But all of them do not come
in top dollar for the same level of knowledge and experiences when they
come to school. So they come, as the gentleman says, at different
levels. That teacher understood it.
What the educators are talking about, when they say ``I want them to
all have As,'' they are talking about mastery, so they are mastering
the subject. There is a difference in learning and mastering. Most of
us can get a bit of knowledge on the computer. If we get training here,
all of us have computers in our office, and we have staffs to have
mastery. A lot of us just have cursory understanding so we can turn it
on and retrieve a little bit of information. If we want to get a little
bit further, we have to call and get help.
What those teachers were saying to the principal and to the
gentleman, I want all my children to be able to have mastery on this
computer. I want them to be able to use it, not just turn it on and
call for help. They want to be able
[[Page 10871]]
to go and get all the data that it has in it.
I have often said that not all of us learn at the same speed. We
forget that sometimes. It takes longer for others, and they still get
it. If one watches students, if one ever notices, there will be some
who we say they are slow. The truth is they are not as interested in
school as others. They may not bloom until they get to be sophomores or
juniors in high school sometimes. Sometimes it happens even after they
leave high school.
There are stories, and I am sure there are Members right here on the
floor of this House who would say that they went into the military or
went somewhere else and came back. Many times, those who came out of
the military, they had 2 or 3 years to adjust. All of a sudden, they
came home and realized, ``I did not apply myself when I was in school.
I really need to settle down and get focused.''
Today with a lot of young people who go into youth service corps or
something else and leave school, and all of a sudden they say, gosh,
``I did not apply myself. I wish somebody would give me a quick kick in
the slacks to understand what I needed.'' That is at that level.
But at the early years, where those youngsters are such sponges, and
they really do want to learn. They come with bright eyes. If you watch
those little ones, they all have bright eyes. They are ready to learn.
They are ready to go.
There is something that we are learning more every day about the
brain and how much children can learn and their capacities, and we are
doing away with a lot of the myths we used to have, because all
children can learn. Let me repeat that again. All children. It makes no
difference what their economic, their ethnic, where they come from, or
where they are going, all children can learn. They can learn at very
high levels. They may have different learning styles.
Dr. Comer has a great program. We used him a number of times in North
Carolina. We had a number of his projects in our State. I think he does
just a wonderful job in showing that we need to bring the family
nurturing the youngsters. Because if a youngster comes in in less than
a nurturing background or comes to school hungry, and if someone tells
us the child does not come, I can assure my colleagues they can go any
place, most places in this country where they will see a child come in
on Monday morning, and I am going to break the stereotype here because
a lot of folks think when we are talking about youngsters, we are
talking about children from economically deprived backgrounds. It may
be children who just have not had a chance to eat, and it may be upper
middle class neighborhoods many times, parents who have the resources.
They do not take time to eat, and they grab something from school.
Certainly there are those who, after Friday afternoon, who get a
regular meal during the week, and Friday is the last really regular
warm meal they get until they show back up on Monday morning.
My wife works in the child nutrition program in my home county and
has for a number of years. She said one can really tell it when school
is out for the summer. A lot of the children are reluctant to leave
because they know something is going to be missing. School is a safe
haven for them, but it also provides for them a real nurturing
environment.
We have had some problems recently in some of our schools. But, by
and large, they are loving, caring, nurturing places for people who
really make a difference.
We had a program, and I will come back to the question the gentleman
raised again in a minute, that we started really in 1992, called
Character Education. It was not unique with us. There is nothing really
new under the sun. We borrowed a lot of things. We borrowed this from a
professor at Vanderbilt and from a number of other folks. But Character
Education is about teaching those things that we can all agree on that
children ought to know. Rather than add it on as an add-on in the
classroom, one really teaches it as an integrated part of the
curriculum.
So in 1995 we got a grant, wrote a project, got a grant from the U.S.
Department of Education, and it started in Wake, Cumberland and
Mecklenburg Counties, our three larger counties. A lot of other
counties, Nash County, Johnston County, Harnett and others picked it
up.
But what we do in that process is the community goes through a
meeting with parents, and the community says here is some of the basic
issues; in this case, this two, four, six, eight, nine issues that they
agreed on in Nash County. I think Wake is about the same.
Trustworthiness. Most folks will not disagree with that. Respect,
responsibility, caring, fairness, citizenship, perseverance, courage,
self-discipline.
They teach this every single day in some part of the curriculum in
every single school. My colleagues say, well, why is that important?
When we get bogged down in arguments of whether or not we ought to have
prayer in school and all these other issues, that tends to be divisive.
This is not divisive. We can agree on these, on all those issues.
If we look at those issues, those really are the kinds of issues that
build communities, that build respect, that make a school what it ought
to be.
In the process of putting this in, what we have found in some of our
schools, I visited a school down in Johnston County, in Selma. I went
in and talked with a principal. He said, ``Oh, yeah, it is working.''
He said, ``Our dropouts went down like 48 percent. The number of
suspensions were down, in half.'' But he said, ``The significant thing
was children have more respect for one another, for their teachers. And
what we saw was our academic scores went up.''
So why would that happen? Very simply. We look at those issues. We
are building trustworthiness. Pretty soon we have respect one for
another. Children get to talk about those things in the classroom as a
part of math, as a part of algebra or science or whatever they are
doing.
So all of those things start to fit. Pretty soon, we find out that we
are back to some of the things we used to do years ago in our schools,
that we sort of bumped out, and now it is catching on in other places.
But we will be talking about some of these and having an opportunity,
as my colleagues well know, in the weeks to come we will talk about the
education budget that will come up. There will be those that say we do
not need the Department of Education. We do not need those monies over
there.
I am here to tell my colleagues, having been a former superintendent
of school at the State level, that was a grant, and every penny of the
money went to local schools, and it made a difference.
Now after we have been a pilot, we are putting it in in all of our
schools, and it will now be used across the country, and the Department
has become a clearinghouse.
Those are the kind of things that really make a difference. We take
those sponges and start feeding them good stuff like this, along with a
rich curriculum, and encourage them and reward them, pretty soon we
start seeing the pressure that used to build that is not there, but the
learning environment goes up. But it takes a long time to make a
change.
Some people want to, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I
understand this, that many times we want to pass legislation and have
instant results. Last time I checked, about the only thing that is
instant we can get is coffee and tea and those things we buy that are
instant.
Children take a while to grow and to really make major changes in
education. It really takes 8 to 10 years because it takes a child about
12 to 13 years to get through school.
{time} 2215
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for what he just talked
about. When the gentleman presented that list, those are also the
things that build character. That is what character is all about, when
we look at that list, trustworthiness and respect.
[[Page 10872]]
But that leads me to something else also. We have, certainly in the
last few weeks, this Congress and our Nation have become very, very
upset about what happened in Littleton, Colorado, and what happened in
Conyers, Georgia; and I think all of us have been searching for
answers, as parents first and legislators second, trying to search our
souls to try to figure out how can we bring a peace and a needed
tranquility to our schools so that our children can learn and feel safe
in school.
And one of the things that I guess has truly impressed me is a school
in my district called Walbrook Senior High School. Walbrook is an inner
city school and had had quite a few problems. They brought in a
principal, a fellow named Andrey Bundley, Dr. Andrey Bundley; he is
about 38 years old. And while other schools were putting up metal
detectors, he was taking them down, and he did it with the very kind of
things the gentleman just talked about.
What he said was, look, young people, let us create an environment of
safety. This is before all of these events just happened or came about.
But he said, I want to create an environment of safety, and he talked
about the very things that the gentleman has there. He just said, we
are going to be responsible for each other, we are going to respect
each other, we are going to trust each other. He said, there is no such
thing as a snitch because what we want to do is create an environment
where we all feel safe.
So what I have done, taking a note from the gentleman's own notebook,
I have created what I call the U-Turn Award. This is an award that we
are presenting to schools that have been able to turn their schools
around. And we are going to be presenting it on June 1 to Walbrook and
to their principal, Dr. Bundley.
When I walk through that school, and the gentleman and I talked about
this a little earlier, a person can walk through a school and in 30
seconds to a minute they can tell a lot about the principal. And when I
walk through that school now, all the children are in their classes or
they are moving peacefully through the halls. They are very respectful
of each other.
Dr. Bundley, on my last visit, just stopped some students in the hall
and he said, what kind of school do we have here, and they said we have
a school where we respect each other. As Pollyanna-ish as it may sound,
the fact is that is what it should be all about, reminding our young
people.
And these kids are a little older now, because we are talking about
high school, but reminding them that, as he says, if we all want a safe
school, then we are all going to make sure we create an environment of
safety and we are all part of that environment. The students have as
much say as the principal has to say.
And then what he found was that a lot of these children, while their
homes may not have been like that, when they got these lessons,
acquired these lessons at school, he found them taking them into their
homes. Because the parents would say, I am surprised, Johnny always
talks about this trustworthiness and this responsibility.
What they discovered was that once they began to do that and they
took down the metal detectors, they discovered that by having that type
of responsibility, that trustworthiness, that looking out for each
other, that that is sort of valuing the family, the family of the
school, and it felt good. It felt good that they could sit in that
classroom.
And the next thing that happened was, other people were recognizing
it. And that is one of the most important things about this recognition
that the gentleman talked about.
When I was in school, we felt so proud of our school. And one of the
reasons we felt so proud was we always had people coming in, the Mayor
would come in sometimes, the Congressmen would come in and would
recognize what we did. So that creates a certain pride, and that is why
when the gentleman talks about the awards that he gives, I think that
is so special and so important. Because by coming in there and saying,
look, gang, you are really doing a great job and I recognize you; and
even tonight, the gentleman mentioning the schools that he has
mentioned, and my mentioning the schools that I have mentioned, that
word will get out. And I guarantee that somebody will be on a P.A.
system tomorrow morning saying, guess what, in the Congress of the
United States of America our school was mentioned or our school was
highlighted.
But something else will happen, too, and that is that there will be
other schools that will say, ``Well, the next time I see Congressman
Etheridge standing up, I'm hoping that he will talk about what we
did.''
And something else will happen through this dialogue, and that is,
other Members of Congress and other State and local officials will look
at this and say, well, hey, maybe we can do some of these same things.
Because truly we all have to work together to make our schools work.
So I take this moment to congratulate Walbrook Senior High School for
what they have done. And, again, it is just so interesting that when
the gentleman mentioned that list of items just a moment ago, it is the
same list, almost identical to the very things that Dr. Bundley at
Walbrook talked about.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman. And the truth is, like I said
earlier, there is nothing really new. You sort of borrow ideas and you
redo them, but this came from people that had worked somewhere else, so
we put it in, expanded it and made it work.
The gentleman talked about his schools, and I talked about Anderson
Creek, I have been to, and Broadway, and the other schools in Lee
County and up in Wake, but we are going to get a chance in this
Congress in the next few weeks to show what kind of mettle we are made
of, too. Because as the gentleman knows, we introduced a bill last week
to create 30,000 more counselors to put in our schools across this
country, that are badly needed, and 10,000 more resource officers to be
out there to assist and help these young people in these areas where it
is needed.
Because certainly in our middle and high schools there are not enough
counselors to meet with them and counsel and help them with all the
assessments. The others that are out there are doing all the paperwork.
That is just one little piece; it will not solve all the problems, but
it will sure help.
I trust before this Congress adjourns that we will also have a chance
to deal with the issue all across America that we are all facing, in
rural and inner cities and certainly in our growing communities, and
that is this issue of school construction, an issue we can do something
about it. I have a bill on it, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
does, a number of others do, and I trust we will pass something on
that.
There are great needs. There is no question about it. And as an
example, in Wake County, one of the counties I represent, they have
grown 29.9 percent since 1990. And every county that touches it has
grown in double digits. A small rural county, 29.7, adjacent to it.
They cannot run fast enough to keep up. They are passing bond issues
and they still cannot keep up. And I think it is time, if we really
believe what we say up here and we really believe education is
important, I happen to believe it is one of the most important things
beyond our national defense that we have to put out, we are going to
have to step up to the plate and take care of that issue.
We can do it on a one-time basis through the tax code to really help
these States and localities meet the needs. Because as the gentleman
well knows, over the next 10 years we will see some of the fastest
growth at our high school levels in the history of this country,
because we are going to see the ``baby boom echo,'' as they are calling
it. The baby boomers are having children, and that growth is going to
come, and we have an obligation, I think, to help meet that need.
I would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CUMMINGS. As the gentleman was talking about school construction,
one of the things that we recently did in my district, we had to get
new computers, and so we decided to take our
[[Page 10873]]
old computers and give them to one of our public schools. And the
amazing thing about this situation is, when we gave those computers, we
did not know how bad off that school was.
The school had 1,600 students and they had 260 kindergartners. And
the interesting thing, out of that 260 kindergarten children, they had
one computer. One computer. And what the principal and the teachers
would do, they were very innovative and they were able to rotate those
260 kids around one computer.
Now, what we did in our district is, just last week, we gave nine
computers. And we were able to clean them up and get them to these
kindergartners and these first graders. But I wish the gentleman could
have seen how excited they were about those computers. And one of the
things that we said during our press conference was that we were
encouraging other businesses and other government agencies, before they
just toss those computers away, to look at our schools.
When a school has a total of 1,600 kids and one computer in this day
and age, that is not very good. I look at my office, and we do not even
hire folks unless they are pretty efficient and effective with regard
to using a computer. And I mention that only because I thought about
the fact that my office had gotten EPA a few months ago to give some
computers, but the school was so ill-equipped and so old that they did
not even have the proper electrical circuits to use the computers.
So that goes back to what the gentleman was saying, and I yield back
to the gentleman.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. That is absolutely true. And that is why when we talk
about school construction and renovation, and I should have added
renovation to it, and someone says, well, the building I went to was
fine, they are not even being honest with themselves when they say
that, because the truth is, if there is a building and it is not wired
for computers, it has to be done.
Now, there is a program that we did in North Carolina, and a lot of
States have done it, where the community actually goes in and helps
rewire the buildings. And that is all well and good, but those
computers need to be networked. They need stations in the classroom.
And if we do not allow children that access, it makes no difference
where they come from, whether the inner cities or rural areas, that
becomes, in my mind, one of the real problems we have in this country.
There might be those who would say to that, we do not really need the
computers, we need to teach them to read and write. Well, give students
a computer, and they will learn to write. People tell me, we do not
have computers; we cannot write. Today, with computers and sending e-
mail, people are doing more writing today than they have ever done in
their lives. There are fewer clerical positions and more managers are
using that.
So my point is that for children, when we put the computers in a
kindergarten classroom, the students just start to shine. They
absolutely shine. And the point the gentleman made about donating his
computers, I gave mine, we gave some of ours out of our office a couple
of weeks ago, and I would encourage other Members of Congress to do so.
All they have to do is get permission. They can do it when they buy new
ones.
There are a lot of them out there. But I would hope they would turn
them over pretty quickly so they can get good equipment and not get
worn-out equipment. Because the last thing schools need is old, worn-
out equipment. They all upgrade them.
I will share this story with the gentleman, because there is a
program going on, and actually this Congress helped fund it last time,
though I was not aware of it, but we have a couple of schools that
actually take the computers, they get the internal parts from one of
the, I am not sure which computer firm they get it from, and they
actually rebuild the computers so they are up to date with the new
standards and all the speed of the new computers. And they are letting
the young people do it in school as part of their vocational classes.
So when that youngster comes out of school, not only can they operate
a computer, they can help build one. And they have a job as a
technician available to them just like that, and they make good money.
So there are things we can do to help if we will be creative and
innovative.
And there is no question that if we have just one computer to even 25
children, that is not enough. We tried to put them in North Carolina, 1
to 50, and we realized that would not work. Then we upped it to 1 in
25. But really they should have five in a classroom, where there are no
more than 25 students. Then when they start working in stations, there
is tremendous results. The teacher can work in other areas while that
child is working on computers.
The gentleman has been in classrooms, as I have, I am sure; and
especially if there are enough computers, they are over there just
working at it, going to it, just doing all those things. And the neat
thing about a computer is, what the child is doing can be instantly
assessed. They get instant feedback, and that is so important.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And they love it. They actually love it.
I assume we are beginning to run out of time here.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). The gentleman has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. As I was listening to the gentleman, I was thinking
about how great this country is and how blessed we are to be here, and
I could not help but think about all the things that the gentleman and
I have talked about tonight. And the gentleman said something to me
earlier that just really touched me.
{time} 2230
My colleague said that what we need to do is make sure we talk about
the positives. So often I think what happens is that we hear the
negative stories and we do not hear the positives.
Right now probably tonight all over this country and for the next two
or three weeks young people are going to be marching down aisles of
auditoriums and some of them will have graduation in churches. And
these young people have achieved a lot.
I look at some of the students in my district, the graduation I just
attended. A young man had cancer throughout his last 3 years of high
school, and he is graduating with honors. Then I think of a young lady
whose mother had died of AIDS, and she took care of her brothers and
sisters for 2 or 3 years and now is graduating with a very, very high
average, over 92 average. I really think that, and that is why I say my
colleague is absolutely right, we have to look at all the wonderful
things that our children are doing.
As I have said to many audiences in my district, these are the
children that come from our womb. They are the children that have our
blood running through their veins. And if we do not lift up our
children, who are we going to lift up, I mean if we really think about
it? I think that we, as a Congress, have to continue to find innovative
ways to lift our children up so that they can be the best that they can
be.
Every time I see a group of children come here to the Capitol, and I
saw my colleague talking to a group just in the last week or so, I look
at those children and I ask myself, Where will they be 5 years from
now? Where will they be 10 years from now? Will they be sitting in the
Congress? Will they be teachers? Will they be lawyers? Will they be
doctors? Or will they have dropped out?
And I know that we as adults have a tremendous responsibility to do
everything in our power to make their lives the very best that they can
be. Because when we really think about it, if it were not for adults
that gave us the guidance, we would not be standing here right now. If
it were not for the teachers that taught us to read and write and do
arithmetic, we would not be here right now.
So I think we have to continue to say to ourselves, look, it is not
enough to talk, but to go out there and do the kinds of things that my
colleague and I have talked about this evening. And
[[Page 10874]]
again, I applaud my colleague for all the wonderful things that he has
done and I thank him for sharing this evening with me and sharing these
ideas. Because I am going to take a lot of the ideas that my colleague
just talked about now, and I have got to tell him, I might not give him
the credit for them when I take them, but I am going to use them. But I
want to thank him for his leadership.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
help and for being here this evening.
Let me close and say to my colleagues that this thing of education is
no one has a lock on all that needs to be done. We have thousands of
teachers across this country who every day go into those classrooms and
fight the battle of ignorance day after day. They do it without a great
deal of pay, but they deserve forever our gratitude and our thanks.
The children who will soon be following us as doctors and lawyers and
teachers and preachers and, as I told a group that graduated the other
night, if they slip up, they might become politicians and become
congressmen and governors, but the truth is they are great youngsters
and we have an obligation to be better role models. We really do.
Because most of them, most of them, are great youngsters. We hear
about those problems. And I think we have an obligation to make sure
that we honor those who do well and encourage those who want to do
better and challenge those that slip up. And I think if we will do
that, they will do better, we will be prouder of them. And that means
that we have an obligation here to make sure that we shepherd the
resources we have, that we do fund the education budget to the extent
that we can and stretch it a little bit when we have to. Because there
are a lot of places in this country where, as my colleague has pointed
out, there are not enough computers. We can help.
The school buildings are not as safe as they ought to be, 50- and 60-
year-old buildings that are not air-conditioned, that are not wired
well. We can do better. In our Nation, in having the boom time we are
having today, if we cannot fix them today and provide those resources
for a good environment for children to learn, if we tell a child school
is important and then he rides by a $40- or $50-million prison to go to
a $3-million school, he has already figured out what is important in
that community.
We can do something about that. We can make that school an
attractive, inviting place to go if it is well-lighted. And lighting is
important if we are talking about learning.
So let me thank my colleague for joining me this evening in this
special order.
____________________
DRUG CRISIS IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, again tonight I come to the
floor to discuss this serious situation in our Nation relating to the
problem of illegal narcotics.
I was pleased in January to assume responsibility to chair the House
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources,
which deals with formulating our national drug policy.
I know that on the front pages of tomorrow's newspapers the stories
of China sabotage and I know that illegally obtained intelligence, the
fund-raising scandals, money that poured into our country through
illegal foreign contributions, sabotage of our intelligence,
information relating to missile technology are serious problems and
will be splashed across the headlines tomorrow.
I know what the headlines have been for the past several weeks since
Columbine and Atlanta that the Nation's attention, the Congress'
attention, has been riveted on the question of school violence. And we
all are saddened by these great tragedies.
But let me say tonight, and I have said it before, that for every
instance of school violence, if we took all the instances of school
violence and death in Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; and
Columbine and we added up all of those tragic deaths the last several
years, we would still have a small figure of 30 or 40 individuals maybe
maximum; and, unfortunately, I hate to use this analogy, but
unfortunately, we have a Columbine times three or four every single day
in the United States as a result of the use of illegal narcotics.
The effects of illegal narcotics on our society are dramatic and
costly. They are indeed costly to over 1.8 million Americans, almost 2
million Americans who are behind bars. Estimates are that some 60 to 70
percent of those incarcerated in our prisons and jails and
penitentiaries are there because of a drug-related offense.
I might say they are not there for casual use of drugs. They are
there because they have committed a crime while under the influence of
illegal narcotics, they are there because they have committed a felony,
robbery, they have been trafficking and selling illegal narcotics. And
they are the victims of illegal narcotics. But we have nearly 2 million
Americans behind bars.
The cost that this Congress will be considering in a few more weeks
to fund the anti-narcotics effort is probably in the range of $18
billion. That is the direct cost that we will look at funding because
of, again, the problems created by illegal drugs.
That is only the tip of the iceberg. We spend somewhere in the
neighborhood of a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in the
tremendous cost of social, economic, welfare support, judicial systems,
incarceration, all these costs to our society because of the illegal
narcotics problem.
Again, the tragedy is just immense. And again, we have the equivalent
of a Columbine times three or four every single day. The sad part about
all this is that many of these tragic deaths are our young people. The
sad part about this is that last year over 14,000 Americans lost their
lives to drug-related deaths.
The tragedy is that, in the past 6 years, under the Clinton
administration, going on 7, we in fact have lost almost a 100,000
people. That is the number of Americans killed in some of our wars and
conflicts. That is the size of entire populations of cities. It is an
incredible tragedy.
And somehow tomorrow in the newspapers it will not be publicized
along with the China sabotage or the Columbine problem. But what will
be publicized is back in the obituaries or on the local page or the
State page is a list of human tragedies. And those tragedies will be
recounted in heroin overdose deaths. They will be recounted if someone
would have died at the hands of someone under the influence of
narcotics, someone who is committing a felony, another murder, under
the influence of illegal drugs. Those are the sad statistics of this
tragedy that we are facing as a Nation.
I come again tonight to talk about this, Mr. Speaker, because I think
it is the most important and critical social problem facing our Nation,
long ignored, not talked about.
As chair of that subcommittee, human resources is one of our topics,
in addition to criminal justice and drug policy. We conducted a hearing
this past week of over 6 hours, hearing from various school officials
and law enforcement officials, some district attorneys, and other
people involved with schools, psychiatrists, psychologists. And they
repeatedly told our panel that, in fact, illegal narcotics and drug use
are at the root of most of our school violence problems.
Of course, we only see splashed across the front pages of our
newspapers and on our television nightly screens one incident with a
large number of casualties at one time. This is a slow and tragic
death, again, thousands of them across the Nation, and an effect on our
young people that is dramatic. Most of the victims of this tragedy are
prime youth and are young people.
Let me also talk tonight about the history of the problem. And I try
not to be partisan in nature, but I do want to be factual and state
that part of the
[[Page 10875]]
reason that we have this epidemic particularly of hard narcotics,
heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, in the United States and other
dramatic increases in usage of illegal drugs is really the result of
the policy of the Clinton administration.
If we look at the charts, and I have said this before, back in the
1980s we had an explosion of cocaine back in the Reagan administration.
But we saw that the policies of President Reagan brought the statistics
down, the usage down, of illegal narcotics and the deaths down from
hard drugs.
{time} 2245
That continued into the Bush administration, with tough policies,
tough eradication at the source, tough interdiction, use of the
military, the Coast Guard, every possible resource of the United States
to bring down illegal narcotics trafficking and the supply of hard
drugs into this country.
Unfortunately the new President in 1993 as one of his first policies
adopted cuts in the Drug Czar's office, began the elimination of many
of the personnel in the Drug Czar's office, and then adopted a policy
which I think we are still seeing the results of today. That is cuts in
the interdiction forces; that is, trying to stop drugs at their source.
Cuts and elimination of the source country eradication programs; that
is, stopping the growth and production of illegal narcotics at their
source. Again the two most cost-effective ways of stopping illegal
narcotics. And then we saw the cuts of the military, dramatic cuts of
use of the United States military in the interdiction of drugs, a
Federal responsibility of stopping the flow of illegal drugs before
they came to the borders of the United States. And then we also saw
dramatic cuts, almost 50 percent cut in some of the Coast Guard budgets
that protected some of our areas and coastal regions, particularly
around Puerto Rico, where we had a good barrier to stop illegal
narcotics coming into the United States through Puerto Rico.
Then, to top off these cuts, the President appointed a Surgeon
General and that Surgeon General sent a mixed message. Joycelyn Elders
did probably as much damage as any public official in the history of
the United States as far as bad health policy. She sent a mixed message
that even our young people repeat today, of ``Just say maybe'' to
casual drug use.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. As a Member of the Republican task force who served
with the gentleman last year, I want to first say I commend his
leadership on this because not only is he down here night after night
speaking about the need for Congress to act quickly but he is doing
that in committee and he is a consistent national leader on this. I am
here also because I am a father of a 16-year-old, a 14-year-old and a
10 and an 8-year-old and much to my shock these children are already
able to get drugs at their school, as almost all kids across America
are able to get it in the school yard. The fact that he is saying,
``Let's attack the source of these drugs, let's enforce the law when
you are caught with it, and let's work with treatment,'' I think that
is very important. I too as a parent when the President's appointee
said the statement, you know, ``Let's legalize marijuana,'' I was
shocked and very concerned about that.
Mr. MICA. Our President sets the tone. I think that as a role model,
as an individual who young people look up to, when you have the
President appoint a Surgeon General that sends a mixed message, our
young people pick that up. When you have a President that has said,
``If I had it to do over again, I would inhale,'' our young people pick
that up.
Now, the gentleman told me that he had teenagers. Could he tell me
the ages of them again?
Mr. KINGSTON. Sixteen, 14, and one 10 turning 11.
Mr. MICA. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Speaker, might be
interested in this National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Administration report dated August 21, 1998. I
did not know the gentleman from Georgia was coming tonight to mention
the ages of at least two of his children, but this is the report. For
kids 12 to 17, first-time heroin use surged a whopping 875 percent from
1992 to 1996. That is an 875 percent increase in heroin use among our
teenagers. So I believe that a policy has consequences, and the
consequences of a bad policy of sending a mixed message and also of not
having a policy in place that stops drugs at their source in a cost-
effective manner results in an increased supply, a lowering of price, a
tremendous availability of illegal narcotics at these sources and into
the United States.
In my central Florida area, a banner headline in the Orlando Sentinel
shouted out recently that in fact drug deaths exceeded homicides in
central Florida. So this is the type of result we are seeing from a
policy that was enacted some 6 years ago and again through repeated
failures of this administration.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to make
sure that in a nutshell what he is saying, as the usage has actually
gone up, the number of arrests and enforcement has gone down?
Mr. MICA. The number of arrests, I believe, have gone up. The
enforcement prosecution did go down with this administration. Now, we
have hammered them some and there has been more prosecution. However,
those statistics are dramatically impacted by New York City and several
other tough Republican mayors. The statistics in New York City are so
dramatic where you have had tough enforcement by Mayor Guiliani. For
example, they had approximately 2,000 murders, 1,980 we will say, in
the year he took office. Tough enforcement has resulted in a 70 percent
drop, somewhere in the range of 600 murders in the entire population of
New York City. So that type of tough enforcement, tough prosecution has
actually skewed some of the national figures.
But if we look at the Department of Justice under this
administration, they failed to go after drug dealers and hard core drug
offenders in the numbers that they should have.
I also wanted to point out to my colleagues that according to the
Drug Abuse Warning Network, which is called DAWN, the annual number of
heroin-related emergency room admissions and incidents increased from
42,000 in 1989 to 76,000 in 1995, an 80 percent increase. This is from
the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumer Committee report in
November of 1998. The number of Americans who used heroin in the past
month has increased steadily since 1992. The number of Americans who
used heroin in the past month increased from 68,000 in 1993, the year
this President took office, that was 68,000, to 325,000 in 1997. This
is also according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. This
is the most recent data we have from 1997. Heroin users are becoming
younger, they are becoming more diverse. And because the heroin that we
are seeing come into the United States today has much higher purity
levels, we are seeing dramatic increases in deaths, particularly among
first-time users, particularly among young people who mix heroin with
some other substance, alcohol, other drugs and do not know that the
purity levels are absolutely deadly. So that is why we are seeing so
many young people dropping like flies in Florida and in other areas of
the United States.
Mr. KINGSTON. Where does the heroin primarily come from? Is this also
Colombia?
Mr. MICA. I am glad the gentleman asked.
Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman just happens to have a chart.
Mr. MICA. I brought back tonight one of my charts to show the flow of
illegal narcotics. This is a pretty simple pattern. Before the
President took office in 1993, Colombia was really more of a transit
country and drug processing country. Now, since we have had such good
results with President Fujimori of Peru who has also had a tough
enforcement program and President Hugo Banzer in Bolivia, the
production of cocaine and coca is down
[[Page 10876]]
dramatically in those countries. In the past 2 years, the Republican
majority has helped those two countries in stopping drugs at the
source, cutting drug production through eradication policies and
alternative crop policies.
Now, would you not know it, but in 1993, again there was almost no
coca produced in Colombia. It was almost all produced in Bolivia and
Peru. But this administration through its policy managed to make
Colombia the largest producer of cocaine in the world. In 1993, there
was almost no heroin produced in Colombia. Most of our heroin came in
from Asia or through Afghanistan and Balkan routes. This administration
managed through its policy of stopping aid and assistance to Colombia
to make Colombia the source of 75 percent of the heroin. It is the
largest heroin producer in the world today. They managed to do all this
since 1993. The way this heroin and cocaine is now coming up, the
Colombians have formed cartels with the Mexicans, and then some is
coming up through and past Puerto Rico and into the United States
through these routes. So the very direct policy, despite letters,
despite pleas by the chairman of our Committee on International
Relations, by the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, by
numerous Members of Congress to get helicopters, to get ammunition, to
get assistance and resources to Colombia to stop this production and
trafficking, Colombia now is the major producing area.
I will say that with some of those individuals I mentioned, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton), we participated in a dedication and contract signing of six
helicopters which are on their way to Colombia, these are Black Hawk
helicopters, to start in an eradication program.
Now, our other problem area, and this is Mexico, and despite this
administration giving NAFTA approval, underwriting the finances of
Mexico, Mexico is the largest source of illegal narcotics coming into
the United States through these routes. Again, despite being a good
ally, a good friend, Mexico has turned almost into a narcoterrorist
state as a result of the amount of trafficking.
So this is the pattern of illegal narcotics. Heroin, cocaine and
methamphetamine coming into the United States today. What is disturbing
about this pattern is that in spite of all of the assistance this
Congress and this administration has given to Mexico, Mexico has really
slapped the United States in the face.
When both of my colleagues who are on the floor were with me 2 years
ago in March, the House of Representatives passed a resolution asking
Mexico to help in about five different areas. First of all, we asked
Mexico to extradite a major drug trafficker or major drug traffickers,
assist us in extraditing those who have been indicted in the United
States, Mexican nationals, and send them to the United States. And what
did we get in return? This past week, the New York Times, ``Setback for
Mexico in 2 Big Drug Cases.'' Major producer, again we have helped
Mexico, we are a good friend and ally of Mexico. What did they do? Let
me read this:
``Mexico City, May 19. Efforts to prosecute the Amezcua Contreras
brothers whom the American authorities say rank among the world's
largest producers of illegal methamphetamines appear to be
collapsing.''
They have in fact let these brothers who were part of this
methamphetamine operation off the hook, dropped the charges against
them. Two of them, I understand, are still held in detention. One has
been set free. Even the Mexicans, who are corrupt from the bottom to
the very top, and I can prove what I am saying with those remarks, are
chagrined that even their judicial system has collapsed, even their
judicial system is corrupt, and these decisions go as high as their
Supreme Court in Mexico.
{time} 2300
So, it is a very sad day when we have not one major Mexican drug
dealer extradited to date. We have had one Mexican national, and that
is only one, and that was a minor player, but not one major Mexican
drug dealer has been extradited to the United States, and again, this
is in spite of the assistance that this Congress has given that
country, in spite of financial aid, NAFTA trade and other benefits that
we have bestowed on Mexico.
And part of it is because of the failed policy of this
administration. They made a charade out of the certification process,
rather than decertifying Mexico and giving them a national interest
waiver and holding them under the microscope of our law which says that
we must certify whether a country is fully cooperating.
Now I ask you: Is Mexico fully cooperating when they let drug
traffickers out? Is Mexico fully cooperating when last year these
statistics were provided us?
Mexican drug seizures were down in 1998. Opium was down, the seizure
of opium in Mexico, 56 percent. The seizure of cocaine was down in
Mexico by 35 percent. The seizure of vehicles and vessels involved in
narcotic trafficking was down.
To top it off, we held a hearing in our subcommittee to find out what
was going on in Mexico, and I talked about corruption. This is a March
16 article from the New York Times. This should absolutely frighten
every Member of Congress, every member and parliamentarian in any
civilized legislative body, to know that one country could be so
corrupt from the bottom to the top, and particularly one that is a
close ally of the United States.
This article by Tim Golden details how our Customs agents penetrated
Mexican military and other Mexican high officials' offices and
discovered that the Mexicans, in this case a general and maybe as high
as the Minister of Defense, were attempting to launder $1.15 billion.
That is one individual was trying to launder $1.15 billion. That is how
high the corruption has grown in this country, and that is how serious
this problem is. And think about that. That is over a billion dollars
that one individual was trying to launder in that country.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, what is the benefit to a
country being certified, and why do we decertify it, and why has it
become so political, because it does appear by the bipartisan findings
of the gentleman's committee that Mexico is not cooperating in giving
us the statistics that we need to fight drugs, but it seems to get
politicized once the issue gets to the floor of the House.
Mr. MICA. Well, only in this administration has it so politicized.
The law is a simple law. The law was passed in 1986. President Reagan
and the Republican Senate passed the law that just tied foreign aid and
foreign assistance to cooperation in eradicating drugs and trafficking,
stopping trafficking in their drugs.
So the law is simple. It says that if a country is cooperating with
the United States to stop illegal narcotics, then they get our finance
benefits, they get our trade benefits, they get our foreign aid.
Now Mexico does not get a lot in the way of foreign aid, as some
Third World countries may get from the United States, but what it gets
is tremendous trade benefits, a trade benefit and now we have an
incredible imbalance, that many more cheap Mexican goods are pouring
into the United States. We have lost tens of thousands of jobs to
Mexico.
We have provided most of the financing and underwriting for Mexico,
including a bailout which basically saved their financial system. So in
turn we ask for very little. We have asked for cooperation in going
after these corrupt officials, we have asked for extradition.
This is what Tom Constantine, our DEA administrator, said on February
24, 1999. He said: In spite of existing United States warrants,
government of Mexico indictments and actionable investigative leads
provided to Mexico by U.S. enforcement, limited enforcement action has
taken place within the last year.
This is Tom Constantine, and I might say that one of the saddest bits
of news that I bring to the floor tonight is that
[[Page 10877]]
Tom Constantine, who has been a shining light in this scandal-ridden
administration, who has been a tough spokesperson in restarting the War
on Drugs, there was no War on Drugs under this administration except
for what Tom Constantine has done, Tom Constantine has unfortunately
announced that he will be leaving this summer, a tremendous blow to our
efforts. He is the only one who has been speaking out, the only one who
has repeatedly said that we have to restore the eradication programs,
the interdiction programs, the use of the military, the Coast Guard,
and that tough law enforcement does work, and he has proved it time and
time again before our committee with statistics, with facts. So, it is
a great loss to the Congress, it is a great loss to the American
people, it is a tremendous loss to the war on drugs which we have
restarted under this Republican Congress, and his departure is a sad
note for us this evening.
I wanted to also talk tonight a little bit about some of the other
things that Mexico was requested to do and has not done.
First, I mentioned extradition. Then I mentioned going after these
corrupt officials in enforcing their laws, and they did not enforce
their laws.
Even worse is we had an operation, another Customs operation in
Mexico dealing with money laundering, and we found in this operation,
which was called Operation Casablanca, that hundreds of millions of
dollars were being money laundered, and when we discovered this, we
informed the Mexicans. We know the Mexicans knew about this operation.
What did the Mexicans do rather than cooperate with the United
States? They threatened to indict and go after our Customs officials.
So, did we have cooperation? The answer has to be no based on, again,
the extradition requests, based on the failure to go after these
corrupt officials, based on their coming after our agents and
threatening them.
So these are several areas, and I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Florida, and representing a
border State, as I do in Arizona, I share my colleague's concern, Mr.
Speaker, because as my friend from Florida has capably laid out for us
this evening, the time has come for a reasonable, sober reassessment of
our relationship with our ally, Mexico. That is something I do not say
lightly, given the fact that the history of Arizona, indeed the history
of this Congress of the United States has been one of cooperation with
our neighbor to the south.
But part of being a good neighbor entails a reasonable interchange
and expression and ability to achieve common goals. As my friend has
pointed out, sadly Mexico has devolved into a leading distributor and
source of illegal drugs in our society, and because of that we must
have this reassessment.
It is especially vexing to a State like Arizona with a vast border
area, with many problems that entail this situation in terms of border
security, and let us not forget that it is our constitutional charge to
protect the borders of the United States.
{time} 2310
As compelling as the facts and figures are, I think both my friends
from Florida and Georgia, Mr. Speaker, and indeed everyone in the
House, knows there is a very real human equation at work that these
threats come to Americans, and while this is not warfare in the
traditional sense, still, it is an assault and an attack on the very
fiber of our society. We talk about increasing drug usage. We talk
about a cavalier attitude expressed, sadly, by this President in an
appearance on MTV when asked by one of the young people in the
audience, if you had it to do all over again, would you inhale, and the
President said, yes, I would. To use that cavalier notion toward drug
usage sets a pattern that is very difficult to break.
Now our friend tells us of the soon-to-be expected departure of Mr.
Constantine from his role and indeed, one who has observed this
administration and tried to work on common goals, those of us in the
Congress cannot help but note that it is incredibly ironic that many of
the capable, effective people in a variety of different posts leave,
and those who should bear the responsibility for a number of
misadventures and maladroit steps insist on staying on the job in a
variety of different areas.
Indeed, I think we are not far afield at all when we point out that
this is a threat to our families, to our citizenry; indeed, this is a
threat to our national security. As much as we want to be a good
neighbor, and I have participated in the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary
Conference in the past, the State of Arizona has a very strong
relationship with the Mexican State of Sonora first established by a
former Governor of Arizona much earlier, now almost 30, maybe in excess
of 30 years ago when we look at the panorama and the march of time, and
yet the words of my colleague from Florida are compelling, because they
insist that this House and this government reassess the relationship
with Mexico, reassess our relationship with these States that export
narcoterrorism, and that is something we do not say lightly. Because,
as my colleague has pointed out, in the past Mexico has been a strong
ally of the United States. As my colleagues have also pointed out, Mr.
Speaker, the United States has been a good friend to Mexico.
I can recall in the first days when I arrived when the now departing
Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, came to new Members of the 104th
Congress, asked us to step up to the plate and essentially bail out the
Mexican economy, prop up the currency there, and of course the
President found almost what could be called an executive end run to
provide those loan guarantees because they knew it would be very rough
going in the Congress of the United States.
So I share my friend's concern. I salute his determination and his
dedication to bringing this issue to light, and more than just bringing
the issue to light, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida, in his
committee jurisdiction, has also worked, as we did in the 105th
Congress on the Drug Task Force, to find credible solutions. For that,
I salute him, and from a border State like Arizona, and indeed across
the whole phalanx of the Southwestern border of the United States, this
becomes a major concern.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. Just as we see threats from around the
world, threats as relevant as tomorrow's headlines in view of
bipartisan work in other areas, so too do we confront a threat to our
families, to our children and, sadly, directly in our hemisphere, and
it is a threat that has gone unabated. It is a threat that has
increased, and this House is compelled, I think, by the work of our
colleague from Florida, to take a closer look to deal with the security
of our homes, the security of our families; indeed, our national
security in this very important area of rising drug abuse and a
cavalier attitude that has been expressed.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his
leadership and coming out tonight to talk about this topic that is so
important to American society.
I just want to continue along the line that I had been talking about,
and that is the problems with Mexico. We have not had one major drug
dealer extradited. Despite over 200 requests for extradition and
requests specifically for over 40 major drug dealers, not one Mexican
national has been extradited today as far as a major drug dealer.
In addition to that, we talked about the enforcement, lack of
enforcement, the corruption at the highest level, not enforcing the
laws that they have on the books. In addition, this Congress asked two
years ago that the Mexicans install radar to the south. It is a simple
request. If we look at where the drugs are coming in, they are coming
in from the south. We asked that they install radar to the south, and
still no radar to the south that was promised, and again when our
President met with President Zedillo in the Yucatan Peninsula earlier
this year. To date, still no maritime agreement signed; there is no
agreement to go after drug traffickers in these waters, particularly
Mexican nationals.
[[Page 10878]]
Finally, we had asked for protection of our drug DEA agents, our drug
enforcement agents. We have a small number in that country. We had one
of our agents just horribly tortured and murdered in the 1980s. We do
not want to see that repeated. We want our agents to be able to defend
themselves, and still we have been denied that ability for our law
enforcement agents that are working in Mexico.
So Mexico, what do we get? This administration ruined the
certification process, made a joke of it and still continues to certify
a country as fully cooperating. They are not by any measure.
I might say tonight that we will have before this House in the not-
too-distant future several measures that will deal with this that the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform; the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), our chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), our
chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on
the Judiciary, have been working on with the Members of Congress. So
there still will be responsibility to the country of Mexico for their
involvement in illegal narcotics. This new Congress will hold their
feet to the fire.
I just want to talk again about another failed policy, international
policy, and it is our responsibility to deal with these issues of where
the drugs are coming from. It is tougher as these drugs get to the
streets, but if we can stop them at their source, their transiting
before they get here, it is much more cost-effective.
One of the stories we will not read on the front page of the paper
tomorrow is about the bungled negotiations of this administration in
Panama. Now, why is Panama important? Again, I can hold this up and if
we look and see Colombia through Panama up to Mexico, that is where
these narcotics transit. But Panama has been the center of all of our
narcotics operations, all forward surveillance operations for the
United States and the Caribbean area, the south and Central America. Of
course we see where drugs are coming from, which is primarily from
Colombia, one of the major sources that this administration has helped
make a major source. And as of May 1, 1999, just a few weeks ago, we
were basically kicked out of Panama. We had 15,000 flights from Panama
last year, and there were zero as of May 1. This administration bungled
the negotiations, and we were told months and months ago that
negotiations were going forward. When we found out earlier this year
that the State Department had dropped the ball, we asked what was going
to be done. The administration has scurried the last few months and
signed interim agreements with Curacao, Aruba, the Netherlands and also
with Ecuador for temporary bases there.
We were told that on May 1 we would be ready to go. We were told on
May 1 we would have flights continuing.
{time} 2320
We were told that, at the very worst, maybe we would have a 50
percent reduction in flights after May 1 in testimony before our
subcommittee. What have we found out that has taken place? From
Ecuador, there are zero. There have been zero flights from Ecuador,
zero flights. From Aruba and Curacao, just a few limited flights.
So basically this administration bungled the negotiations with
Panama. We are turning over 5,600 buildings, $10 billion in assets.
Already we have seen, in addition to closing down Howard Air Force
Base, another scandal that should be on the front pages of the
newspaper, that our two ports in Panama that we had operated out of had
been given through corrupt vendors, and these are the words of our
administration officials, through corrupt vendors to foreign countries;
and one of them happens to be the Chinese.
In both instances, I believe the Chinese Liberation army owns or has
a controlling interest in the stock and ownership of those activities.
So we basically turned over the Panama Canal and one of the ports to
the Red Chinese Army. The other one, again also through a corrupt
vendor and through a Taiwan-Hong Kong front, that second port is gone.
Our major drug operation in that entire region we have been kicked
out of as of May 1. The interim agreements are not signed. I believe
the agreement in Ecuador is only for a few months. At the last hearing
our subcommittee held, we were presented a bill for another $40 plus
million for improvements in addition to $73 million which the Drug Czar
put in the budget for relocating the forward surveillance operations of
the United States.
So basically we are wide open for the hard drugs to come into this
United States. Panama is a wide open area. Again we have lost our shirt
and basically been kicked out. The $73 million originally requested
plus the supplemental, $43 million, which has not been given yet, is
only the tip of the iceberg. I am told we may be at a half a billion
dollars to replace these operating facilities. We do not have a single
permanent agreement in place.
I do not know how an administration can possibly bungle anything in a
more inept manner than they have done with this Panama situation and
basically closing down all of our forward drug surveillance operations.
These surveillance operations affect the operations, for example, in
Peru, where we have gotten the cooperation of the Peruvian government
to go in and eradicate narcotics fields, coca fields. Basically, that
information stops because we do not have the operation going forward to
identify those locations.
So these are some of the incredible problems that I wanted to detail
tonight, both with the Mexico, with Colombia failed policy, stopping
again the equipment from getting into Colombia.
I do not want to leave on a note that we are only here to criticize
the administration. I must say that I am very proud of this new
majority and what they have done. First of all, under the leadership of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who is now the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, he came in several years ago and chaired the
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal
Justice on which I serve. In that capacity, he helped put together the
war on drugs.
We have to remember, from the day this President got elected, they
dismantled the war on drugs. I have heard people say we do not have a
war on drugs. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have not had a war on drugs. It was
dismantled in January of 1993 by this President.
From 1993, this President dismantled the war on drugs. The Congress,
which was controlled by the Democrats in the House and the other body,
by wide margins, dismantled systematically all of the programs that the
Reagan and the Bush administration had put into placement and years and
years of work.
Some of that was bipartisan. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
and other Members on both sides of the aisle put together effective
drug strategy. That was dismantled. There was no war on illegal drugs
from 1993 to 1995.
In 1996, the Republicans, who gained control, did damage assessment
and started restoring some of the funds for eradication programs for
interdiction, restoring the military in this effort, and for also
putting back the Coast Guard on watch and active in this antinarcotics
effort. So that is some of what we have done.
We have, through the leadership of those that I have mentioned,
again, including the current Speaker of the House, put back last year
almost $1 billion in additional funding to support these efforts.
In addition to the programs that I have talked about, enforcement,
interdiction, eradication, we also put $195 million in education, which
is the first time that anything has been done on that scale, to start
educating our young people.
If it has to be a paid message, if it is not a high message setting a
role model from the office of the President of the United States, then
we will pay
[[Page 10879]]
for it. That $195 million is matched by donations, at least equal to
that sum.
So hopefully we will, again, in restarting all of these efforts, and
particularly in education, we can get out the message. The First Lady
under President Reagan, Mrs. Reagan, had a simple message: ``Just say
no.'' It was repeated over and over and effective, and our young people
heard that message.
But there has been a gap in this administration. No word, a mixed
message, a mixed signal, no role model for young people to look up to.
We have seen the results, and I described them here tonight. There is
an 875 percent increase in heroin usage by our teenagers 12 to 17,
dramatic figures that should shock every American and every Member of
Congress.
So we have, again, put these programs back together that work. We are
overseeing those programs. We will see if they are cost effective, if
they are working, and will continue to expand them.
In the next few weeks when we return, we will be conducting a hearing
on the question of legalization and decriminalization. I know the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and his State has taken action on
this issue. We do not know if they are headed in the right direction or
the wrong direction. We do know that tough enforcement works.
The Guiliani in New York City method works. It cuts crime. It cuts
murders. It cuts drug deaths. It cuts violence in our streets when one
of our largest cities is one of our safest cities.
We see the alternative. Baltimore, which Tom Constantine, our DEA
director, who is leaving, pointed out to us just a few years ago,
Baltimore had 900,000 people and less than 1,000 heroin addicts.
Through a liberal policy and a permissive policy Baltimore now has a
population of 600,000. It has dropped 300,000 people. It has 39,000
heroin addicts.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who is my former ranking
member on the Subcommittee on Civil Service and on this subcommittee
has told me privately that the estimate is probably in excess of 50,000
heroin addicts in Baltimore.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, is it not
true that Baltimore also had a very aggressive, privately funded by
very liberal philanthropists, a needle exchange program where addicts
could have quick and easily available access to free needles? That was
one of the misguided policies that led to such a dramatic increase in
the number of addicts.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is true that Baltimore has had one of the
most liberal policies and has now been devastated. When any city in
this Nation has 39,000 heroin addicts, we have a major, major problem.
{time} 2330
And the crime, the social disruption, the human tragedy that that has
caused in a liberal policy is very serious.
So I intend, as chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform to
conduct hearings beginning in June, when we return, on this question.
We will examine what is going on in Baltimore, what is going on in New
York, in other countries.
And we hope to also look at Arizona, which has had a
decriminalization program that they have touted. And we will see
whether that is successful and whether it is something we should look
at as a model; whether it is something that should have the support of
this Congress or whether they are headed in the wrong direction and we
should not support those efforts.
So I am pleased tonight to come and provide the House, Mr. Speaker,
with an update on some of our activities in our subcommittee, some of
my efforts to try to bring to light what I consider is the biggest
social problem facing this Nation, I know in my lifetime, I know in a
generation, and that is the problem of illegal narcotics.
Again, over 14,000 Americans lost their lives last year. Over 100,000
have died from illegal narcotics since this President took office.
It is a human tragedy that extends far beyond Columbine or Jonesboro
or any of the other tragedies we have seen in this Nation. And as I
said, it is repeated day after day in community after community, and we
can read it in the obituaries.
I am not here just to complain about the cost to the Federal
Government. I am here to complain about the loss in productive lives.
Even in this city, which is our Nation's Capital, of which we should
all be proud, each year that I have come here in the last 10 years they
have lost between 400 and 500 young people, mostly black African-
American males who have been slaughtered on the streets, most in
tragedies, some by guns, some by knives, some by other violent death,
but almost all related to illegal narcotics trafficking.
And that is the root of some of the problems in the streets of
Washington, D.C., and across our country, when we have 60 to 70 percent
of those behind bars there because of felonies committed under the
influence of illegal narcotics or trafficking in illegal narcotics or
committing felonies under the influence of illegal narcotics.
So we have a serious social problem. It is ignored by this
administration, it has been ignored by this President, but it is not
going to be ignored by this new majority. And if I only serve the
remainder of this term in Congress, every week I will be here talking
about this problem and its effects on the American people and what we
intend to do as far as positive programs to resolve that. And we will
do that. We will succeed.
I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Florida again for his leadership
and for bringing this problem to the floor.
And again I would say that this is a question of security, personal
security and the security of our families and our communities. Because,
as my colleague pointed out very graphically and very tragically, the
cost in human lives, with the incredible violence that accompanies
illicit drug distribution and use, is ultimately a question of our
national security and the security of our borders.
And, indeed, on the geopolitical stage, the consequence of those who
would or who have traditionally been our friends is now sadly changing,
if not to foes, then certainly not aiding us in the traditional sense
as allies have in the past. And again, from the State of Arizona, from
my constituents in the Sixth District, and indeed all across America,
because this is a problem that transcends our borders, that transcends
State lines, that sadly goes virtually into every community in the
United States, it is a question we must address.
This is one of many vexing questions that now have come into our
purview and that have gained the prominence and attention necessary,
and again the gentleman is to be saluted for offering a clarion call to
this House, to this government and, more importantly, to our people in
terms of the tough choices that loom ahead for this House and for this
Nation.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman and yield finally to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me again say to the gentleman from Florida that we
appreciate everything he is doing, the diligence that he is showing in
taking this on. I wish him the best and thank him. And I want him to
know that he has the support of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) and myself, and we will be following up with the gentleman
and working with him.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
____________________
CHINESE ESPIONAGE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is
recognized until midnight.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth), and also invite the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) to
join us. He is welcome to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the biggest and the scariest espionage in the history of
our
[[Page 10880]]
country has taken place, and many of the details were revealed today in
the Cox report. Now, the Cox report was a bipartisan congressional
investigation, and it raised many pertinent questions.
The Communist Chinese now have in their possession our top nuclear
secrets. They have cut in half, certainly more than half, the years of
research that it took the United States to construct such weapons. They
stole this information. They saved many, many years and they saved
millions, if not billions, of dollars.
And while this has gone on under a lot of different administrations
and over a long period of time, it is obviously clear that the Clinton
administration, the National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, knew about
this at least in April of 1996. He briefed the President of the United
States in July of 1997, again in November of 1998, and since January of
1999, the White House has been sitting on the completed Cox report.
And yet only in March of this year did they take steps to fire one
potential suspected spy, Wen Ho Lee. Only then. And, actually, he is
not arrested at this point. He is still only on administrative leave, I
think. I do not know exactly what the term is.
But the two questions here are: How big is this thing; how much
information do they have on our nuclear weapons in China? And why did
the administration react the way it did?
I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Florida amply pointed out just one
threat to our national security. Mr. Speaker, I would go further in the
realm of Chinese espionage to say to this House and to the American
people that we face a clear and present danger.
Mr. Speaker, the report released today, available on the Internet,
and I am sure many responsible publications across the United States
will carry it in detail tomorrow, outlines a traumatic, devastating
loss to this Nation in terms of national security, and that is why I
describe it as a clear and present danger.
My colleague from Georgia pointed out the fact that this bipartisan
report was drafted and really completed in January of this year, and
only now, some 5, almost 6 months later, has this report at long last
been released to the American people.
It has been a strength of our society that once we as a people
recognize a threat, we deal with that threat in a responsible manner.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to do so at this juncture in our
history because of what has been called, in common parlance, ``spin'';
what some used to call in the past ``smoke and mirrors.'' And while my
colleague pointed out that espionage is nothing new, that different
countries observe and conduct surveillance on one another, the fact is
that the disturbing information is something that this House and this
Nation must deal with and should deal with immediately.
{time} 2340
A point that should be addressed is the inevitable spin echoes from
sympathetic pundits and indeed from the spin machine at the other end
of Pennsylvania Avenue that, oh, this has happened before and previous
Presidents are to blame.
Let me offer this simple analogy: Mr. Speaker, suppose you
contemplate a vacation and you take reasonable precautions in your
house. You will lock your doors. You lock your windows. If you have an
alarm device, you activate it. And yet thieves are aware that you have
left your home. They disable the alarm system. They gain entrance to
your home. And they begin to take your property. Your belongings.
Now, that is one thing. But contrast it. If someone is sitting at
home in the easy chair and these same thieves pull up and the person in
the home says, ``Well, come on in. And you might want to look in this
area. And by the way, let me offer to show you where my wife keeps her
jewelry. And here are our stocks and bonds. And let me help you take
these and load up your van. And listen, we will just keep this between
us because it would be very embarrassing to me if I allowed this
information to get out, if I chose to stop this. So I will take minimum
action to stop what has gone on.'' That analogy, however imperfect,
essentially sums up what has transpired.
It is important to note, as my colleague from Georgia capably points
out, that, sadly, our national security advisor, with the
responsibility that that title in fact describes, has aided our
national insecurity, compounding that, the curious actions of the
Justice Department and our current attorney general.
My colleague from Georgia mentioned Wen Ho Lee, the suspected spy at
one of our national labs, still not arrested. And indeed the Justice
Department asked for wiretap authority when there was a preponderance
of evidence and more than reasonable suspicion that it should be
checked.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, actually it was the
FBI that asked the Justice Department.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for correcting the
record. I misspoke. The FBI asked the Justice Department for the
ability to wiretap this individual because of the threat to our
national security. And in all the wiretaps issued following our
constitutional procedures, this particular wiretap was denied. This
special surveillance was denied.
Couple that with the curious case of a Chinese arms merchant suddenly
gaining clearance for the import into this country of 100,000 weapons
to be used on the streets of our inner cities where again the agency in
charge looked the other way. Couple that with the disturbing reality of
the fact that the communist Chinese through their business operations
controlled by their so-called People's Liberation Army actually
contributed to the Clinton-Gore effort in 1996 and, sadly, to the
Democratic National Committee in that same year, and we have a
compelling devastating case that should cause concern for every
American.
Before I yield back to my friend from Georgia, just so we can clear
this up, this is not a matter of partisanship. It is a question of
patriotism. Because we confront a clear and present danger, we must
avoid the temptation of engaging in personalities and instead deal with
policies and change those policies.
But regrettably, to this date, this administration has been more
interested in spin and preening and posturing and offering the clever
retort or the by now familiar rejoinder that ``everyone does it.''
Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell my colleagues again that not everyone
does it, but sadly all too many people within this administration have
not fulfilled their responsibilities to the citizens of this country to
maintain vigilance and to take actions against those who would steal
our secrets.
Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the findings are chilling. In
the overview, just to repeat from the Cox summary, China has stolen
design information on the United States' most advanced thermonuclear
weapons. The Select Committee on Intelligence, the bipartisan
committee, judges that China's next generation of thermonuclear weapons
currently under development will exploit elements of stolen U.S. design
information and China's penetration of our national weapons
laboratories spans at least the past several decades and almost
certainly continues today.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, I want to stop
at that point for a minute. Because what is interesting is we hear
these incessant defenders of this administration, regardless of what
the administration does, they are automatically with them but forget
the facts. They keep saying, well, it still does not matter because
China has x number of nuclear warheads and America has x-number-plus
nuclear warheads.
But they miss the whole point. This is not about our number of
nuclear warheads versus their numbers. It is about the technology. And
we have now given China the know-how to catch up should they choose to.
And
[[Page 10881]]
they also have these so-called legacy codes, which are the ones that
actually predict what a nuclear explosion will do; and that seems to be
the reason why they signed a nuclear test ban treaty because they had
stolen information and the know-how from America. They did not have to
test their weapons anymore.
My colleague went quickly, though, on the subject of Wen Ho Lee. Wen
Ho Lee, the suspected spy at Los Alamos Lab, the weapons lab, when the
FBI suspected him of spying, they went to the Justice Department to get
a wiretap and they were turned down, which my colleague has pointed
out.
What was not pointed out was there was 700 wiretaps that year and all
but two were approved by the same Justice Department. So you have to
ask yourself, was this Justice Department purposely protecting an
international spy? We know this was the Justice Department who turned
down a special prosecutor of the Chinese money scandal, even though the
FBI recommended one.
But let us say, I want to give the Justice Department the benefit of
the doubt and say, okay, out of the two that they turned down, 700 were
approved, two were turned down, and one of them had to be the biggest
spy in the history of the United States of America. Okay, you did it
nobly. Well, then is it just plain old incompetence? How did you miss
that one? What was it more that the FBI could have said?
And maybe it is not just the Justice Department's fault. Maybe it is
the FBI did not describe the situation well enough to the Justice
Department. I worry about what other decisions are being made or have
been made along the way.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would point out and I would challenge my
former colleagues in television at the various networks and the 24-hour
cable news services to show the American people the videotapes of the
communist Chinese business people in the Oval Office with the President
of the United States now knowing in the fullness of time that those
same communist Chinese business people contributed massive amounts of
cash to a reelection effort.
There is a disturbing tendency in this country to succumb to the cult
of celebrity. And if one has a clever enough rejoinder or simply
returns to the school yard taunt that everybody does it and it is
unfair to criticize one party or one administration for their actions,
to do so is to willingly be blinded to what is staring us in the face.
Mr. Speaker, I made the comment to some of my constituents over the
weekend that Washington today is wrapped up in what is an Alan Drury
novel come to life. It is so mind boggling, it is so far afield to ever
think that an administration would out of incompetence or blissful
ignorance or for political advantage allow the transfer of technology,
allow espionage from a foreign power to jeopardize the security of the
United States of America.
{time} 2350
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States came to this podium
in one of his recent State of the Union messages and boasted that no
longer were United States cities and citizens targeted by Russia. Well,
of course, technically that was true, although the missiles could be
reprogrammed in a matter of minutes.
But now we face a situation where the Chinese have the technology,
they have made a quantum leap because of the stolen information,
because of the aforementioned legacy codes and computer models. Because
of their ill-gotten gains in terms of hundreds of supercomputers that
can provide the simulations of nuclear explosions, now the Chinese have
the same technology that we have.
Indeed in some areas, for example, the neutron bomb, often maligned
and lampooned by late night comedians and pundits in this town as the
weapon that kills people, but does not destroy property, the United
States never went into production of a neutron bomb, and yet the
Chinese are moving full tilt ahead.
They have acquired that technology, they have expounded upon the
technological advancements of this society and our constitutional
Republic, and our leaders of the time decided not to pursue that
particular weapon, but the Chinese have it. And soon they will have
small, more accurate thermonuclear warheads.
And make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, those warheads will be targeted at
the United States. We say this not to inspire fear but instead, Mr.
Speaker, to encourage the American people to check the facts available
on the Internet.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will go back to the great ad that
Ronald Reagan had and a philosophical question that he asked the
American people about, ally sometimes and enemy sometimes. The evil
empire itself, Russia. In that ad he said, ``There is a bear in the
woods, but some Americans believe there's not a bear in the woods.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that if there was a bear in the woods, that
you would be protected from the bear?''
Now we are at the situation with China, we have a lot of people
saying, oh, no, China they're our friend, everything's fine.
Well, let us go back. China, I hope, is our friend, but if they are
not our friend, would it not be nice to know that in a country of 1.4
billion people, that we, with 260 million, are at least protected
against aggression on their part? Would it not be nice to know that
should they choose to become an aggressive adversary, that we are
protected? Of course it would be nice to know that. Yet, thanks to this
espionage, we are not.
The gentleman has pointed out, it has gone on a lot longer than the
current administration. I hope that any previous administration that
had knowledge of it reacted strongly. But we do know for a fact that
when this particular spy in this particular scandal first came to light
by the National Security Adviser in April 1996, that it was apparently
ignored.
We also know, and the gentleman has not pointed this out, that when
the Deputy Director of Intelligence, Notra Trulock, at the Department
of Energy, 3 years ago said, there's spying going on, we know that he
was ignored and he was later demoted from his job. Let us hope that is
coincidence, but I would have a hard time believing it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Fact is stranger than fiction as my colleague from
Georgia is pointing out.
Another oddity, the aforementioned National Security Adviser, one
Sandy Berger, when informed of the breach of security at Los Alamos
National Laboratory by Notra Trulock, in that same month, the Vice
President of the United States went to California for what was first
described by his staff and by him personally, if I am not mistaken, as
a community outreach event. Subsequently, it has been discovered that
this was a fund-raiser where substantial amounts of foreign cash from
China were pumped into the Clinton-Gore reelection effort.
Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask the American people, what price
victory? We take an oath of office here to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States. It is this same Constitution that
says in its remarkable preamble that one of the missions of our Federal
Government as we the people have formed this union is to provide for
the common defense. Yet Vice President Gore in meeting the press
offered an endless chorus of justification for contribution
irregularities. He said, now in an infamous line, ``My legal counsel
informs me there is no controlling legal authority.''
How sad, how cynical, and ultimately how dangerous that those in whom
the American people have placed their trust, in those who have taken
the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, of one who
aspires to become our Commander in Chief would so callously disregard
the safety of our constitutional republic, the national security of
every family, every child, every citizen of this Nation, to win
political advantage. Or to soft-pedal, to silence because of political
implications. The design is there.
It is said that one of the criticisms of our society is that we have
become cynical. Mr. Speaker, how could we not
[[Page 10882]]
grow even more cynical with the revelations that have appeared, some
that have come out in dribs and drabs with the delay of the release of
this report, despite the fact that there are national security
concerns, we do have our own counterintelligence efforts, it appears
that in this city, politics is preeminent.
Again let me state this. I take no joy in this. It is mind-boggling,
it is disturbing, but every American should ask themselves this
question: Have our leaders in the administration been good custodians
of the Constitution? Have they provided for the common defense; or, in
boastful claims of reinventing government, claiming drawdown, a
reduction in government employees, eviscerated our military to the tune
of a quarter million personnel, put American lives at risk, and brought
us to this? A question not of personal conduct in terms of
relationships but of actions taken that jeopardize and threaten the
security of every American. That is the juncture at which we find
ourselves now.
No one takes joy in this but the strength of the American people is
in understanding once a problem has been confronted through our
constitutional processes, through the fact that we must all stand at
the bar of public opinion and let the public render a judgment, that we
can rectify the problem.
Jefferson spoke of it, that the vitality of this country would
eventually overcome those who would follow mistaken policies, for
whatever reason, and that is the challenge that we confront, not as
Democrats or Republicans but as Americans, because nothing less than
our national security and our national vitality in the next century is
at stake. This is the stark reality that we confront.
That is why all of us who serve in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, as
constitutional officers to provide for the common defense, to provide
for our national security, must have answers to these hard questions.
And that is why, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of the United States
should tender her resignation immediately, the National Security
Adviser should tender his resignation immediately, and those who are
elected officials will have the verdict of history decide but that
history and history's judgment will not be a century away, it will be
forthcoming and in short order.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me just say this. I think the gentleman from
Arizona is absolutely right, as certainly Jefferson was, about the
vitality of the American people and may they use that strength quickly
and decisively on this particular scandal. But we have got to protect
our Nation and our national security interest.
That is one reason why this Congress is going to move ahead to make
recommendations to get rid of the spies at Los Alamos and anywhere
else. But one thing I want to emphasize is that this is a bipartisan
effort. That report, the Cox report, passed unanimously from a
bipartisan committee. This is not about getting onto the White House.
This is about national security. I think that it is very important that
we all keep in mind that the Democrats and Republicans on this one are
scared to death.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today
on account of official business.
Mr. Reyes (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
official business.
Ms. Millender-McDonald (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on
account of official business.
Mr. McCollum (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today after 8:00 p.m.
and May 26 until 3:00 p.m. on account of family business.
____________________
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. Udall of New Mexico) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Filner, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Underwood, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Carson, for 5 minutes, today.
The following Members (at the request of Mr. Sessions) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:
Mr. Diaz-Balart, for 5 minutes each day, today and on May 26.
Mr. Fletcher, for 5 minutes, on May 27.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 59 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 26, 1999, at
10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
2314. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Cranberries Grown in the States
of Massachusetts, et al.; Temporary Suspension of a Provision
on Producer Continuance Referenda Under the Cranberry
Marketing Order [Docket No. FV99-929-1 IFR] received May 10,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
2315. A letter from the the Director, the Office of
Management and Budget, transmitting cumulative report on
rescissions and deferrals, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 685(e); (H.
Doc. No. 106-71); to the Committee on Appropriations and
ordered to be printed.
2316. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a request of transfers from the
Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses account;
(H. Doc. No. 106-70); to the Committee on Appropriations and
ordered to be printed.
2317. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Office of the Secretary, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance; Statutory Merger of
Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Programs [Docket No. FR-
4428-1-01] (RIN: 2577-AB91) received May 18, 1999, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
2318. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Office of the Secretary, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Revised Restrictions on Assistance to Noncitizens
[Docket No. FR-4154-F-03] (RIN: 2501-AC36) received May 18,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
2319. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting a statement with respect to a
transaction involving U.S. exports to Saudi Arabia; to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
2320. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's semiannual report
on the activities and efforts relating to utilization of the
private sector, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1827; to the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services.
2321. A letter from the Regulations Policy and Management
Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Service's final rule--Secondary Direct Food
Additives Permitted in Food for Human Consumption [Docket No.
98F-0342] received May 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
2322. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Passenger
Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards [Docket No. NHTSA-
98-4853] (RIN: 2127-AG95) received May 20, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
2323. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase IV: Treatment Standards for Wood
Preserving Wastes, Final Rule; and Land Disposal Restrictions
Phase IV: Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes, Final Rule;
and Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers, Final Rule; and Carbamate
Treatment
[[Page 10883]]
Standards, Final Rule; and K088 Treatment Standards, Final
Rule [FRL-6335-7] (RIN: 2050-AE05) received April 29, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
2324. A letter from the Legal Advisor, Cable Services
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commisssion's final rule--Implementation of Section 304 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Commercial Availability
of Navigation Devices [CS Docket No. 97-80] received May
21,1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Commerce.
2325. A letter from the Special Assistant Chief, Mass Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Amendment of Section 73.202(b) Table
of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (East Brewton, Alabama
and Navarre, Florida) [MM Docket No. 97-233 RM-9162] received
May 14,1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
2326. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Consolidated Guidance about
Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance about 10 CFR
Part 36 Irradiator Licenses, dated January 1999--received May
17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Commerce.
2327. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Rulemaking for EDGAR System [Release Nos. 33-7684; 34-
41410; IC-23843; File No. S7-9-99] (RIN: 3235-AH70) received
May 17, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
2328. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a report on the status of efforts to
obtain Iraq's compliance with the resolutions adopted by the
U.N. Security Council, pursuant to Public Law 102-1, section
3 (105 Stat. 4); (H. Doc. No. 106-69); to the Committee on
International Relations and ordered to be printed.
2329. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting notification concerning the
Department of the Navy's Proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance (LOA) to United Kingdom for defense articles and
services (Transmittal No. 99-15), pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2776(b); to the Committee on International Relations.
2330. A letter from the Chairman, International Fund for
Ireland, transmitting the Fund's 1998 Annual Report; to the
Committee on International Relations.
2331. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 13-64, ``Solid
Waste Facility Permit Amendment Act of 1999'' received May
19, 1999, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
2332. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 13-58,
``Insurance Demutualization Amendment Act of 1999'' received
May 19, 1999, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to
the Committee on Government Reform.
2333. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 13-65, ``Closing
of Public Alleys in Square 51, S.O. 98-145, Act of 1999''
received May 19, 1999, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-
233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
2334. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 13-66, ``Chief
Technology Officer Year 2000 Remediation Procurement
Authority Temporary Amendment Act of 1999'' received May 19,
1999, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
2335. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 13-59,
``Petition Circulation Requirements Temporary Amendment Act
of 1999'' received May 19, 1999, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
2336. A letter from the Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis (Howell's
spectacular thelypody) (RIN: 1018-AE52) received May 21,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
2337. A letter from the Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Status for Johnson's Seagrass (RIN:
1018-AF62) received May 21, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
2338. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Species in the Rock sole/Flathead
sole/``Other flatfish'' Fishery Category by Vessels Using
Trawl Gear in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
[Docket No. 990304063-9063-01; I.D. 042799B] received May 5,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
2339. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Economic
Exclusive Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries by Vessels
Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.
990304062-9062-01; I.D. 051299E] received May 20,1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
2340. A letter from the Chief, Regs and Admin Law, USCG,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Rules of Practice, Procedure, and Evidence for
Administrative Proceedings of the Coast Guard [USCG-1998-
3472] (RIN: 2115-AF59) received May 20, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2341. A letter from the Acting Chief, Office of Regulations
and Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Safety Zone: 4th of
July Celebration Fireworks Display, Great South Bay,
Sayville, New York [CGD01-99-040] (RIN: 2115-AA97) received
May 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2342. A letter from the Chief, Regs and Admin Law, USGC,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Safety Zone: Groton Long Point Yacht Club
fireworks display, Main Beach, Groton Long Point, CT [CGD01-
99-039] (RIN: 2115-AA97) received May 20, 1999, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2343. A letter from the Acting Chief, Office of Regulations
and Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Local
Regulations: Hudson Valley Triathlon, Hudson River, Kingston,
New York [CGD01-98-155] (RIN: 2115-AE46) received May 20,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2344. A letter from the Chief, Regs and Admin Law, USCG,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Drawbridge Operating Regulation; Lake
Pontchartrain, LA [CGD08-99-032] (RIN: 2115-AE47) received
May 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2345. A letter from the Acting Chief, Office of Regulations
and Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; River Rouge (Short-Cut Canal),
Michigan [CGD09-98-055] (RIN: 2115-AE47) received May 20,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2346. A letter from the Program Support Specialist,
Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Airworthiness Directives;
McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems (MDHS) Model 369E,
369FF, 500N, and 600N Helicopters [Docket No. 99-SW-11-AD;
Amendment 39-11113; AD 99-08-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
May 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2347. A letter from the Acting Chief, Office of Regulations
and Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Local
Regulations: Fleet's Albany Riverfest, Hudson River, New York
[CGD01-98-163] (RIN: 2115-AE46) received May 20, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2348. A letter from the Program Support Specialist,
Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Airworthiness Directives;
Raytheon Aircraft Corporation Beech Models 65-90, 65-A90, 65-
A90-1, 65-A90-2, 65-A90-3, 65-A90-4, B90, C90, C90A, E90,
H90, and F90 Airplanes [Docket No. 90-CE-18-AD; Amendment 39-
11171; AD 99-10-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 20, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2349. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Uniform National
Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces [FRL-
6335-5] (RIN: 2040-AC96) received April 29, 1999, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2350. A letter from the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation that
would make changes to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; jointly to the Committees
on Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure.
2351. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting an announcement concerning the
Request for Proposals for the Ecology and Oceanography of
Harmful Algal Blooms Project; jointly to the Committees on
Resources, Commerce, Science, and Armed Services.
[[Page 10884]]
2352. A letter from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting a
draft of proposed legislation which would provide a more
competitive electric power industry; jointly to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Commerce, Agriculture,
Transportation and Infrastructure, Resources, and the
Judiciary.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. YOUNG of Florida: Committee on Appropriations. Report
on Suballocation of Budget Allocations for Fiscal Year 2000
(Rept. 106-163). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 189.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 150)
to amend the Act popularly known as the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act to authorize disposal of certain public lands or
national forest lands to local education agencies for use for
elementary or secondary schools, including public charter
schools, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-164). Referred to
the House Calendar.
Mr. DREIER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 190.
Resolution providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
1905) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes (Rept. 106-165). Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. LAZIO (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Lampson, Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Foley, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Clement, Mr. Farr
of California, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Cunningham, Mr. Etheridge, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr.
English, Mr. Luther, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
Ramstad, Mr. Armey, and Mr. DeLay):
H.R. 1915. A bill to provide grants to the States to
improve the reporting of unidentified and missing persons; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. TURNER (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Price of
North Carolina, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Pickering, Mr.
Sessions, and Mr. Sandlin):
H.R. 1916. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to reduce to 36 months the amortization period for
reforestation expenditures and to increase to $25,000 the
maximum annual amount of such expenditures which may be
amortized; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Weygand,
Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Rahall, Mr.
Hilleary, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Wamp, and Mr.
Ackerman):
H.R. 1917. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to make additional payments under the Medicare
Program to certain home health agencies with high-cost
patients, to provide for an interest-free grace period for
the repayment of overpayments made by the Secretary to home
health agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. Clement, Mr. Crane, Mr.
Ramstad, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Hayworth, Mr.
Weller, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Tanner):
H.R. 1918. A bill to provide for implementation of
prohibitions against payment of Social Security benefits to
prisoners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. Clement, Mr. Crane, Mr.
Ramstad, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Hayworth, Mr.
Weller, and Mr. Foley):
H.R. 1919. A bill to require the Commissioner of Soical
Security to provide prisoner information obtained from the
States to Federal and federally assisted benefit programs as
a means of preventing the erroneous provision of benefits to
prisoners; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr. Obey):
H.R. 1920. A bill to establish a program to provide grants
to expand the availability of public health dentistry
programs in medically underserved areas, health professional
shortage areas, and other Federally-defined areas that lack
primary dental services; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Campbell,
Mr. Cox, and Mr. Ehrlich):
H.R. 1921. A bill to provide that the provision of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 on the accounting of tips in
determining the wage of tipped employees shall preempt any
State or local provision precluding a tip credit or requiring
a tip credit less than the tip credit provided under such Act
and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that tips received for certain services shall not be subject
to income or employment taxes; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, 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. DOOLITTLE (for himself, Mr. DeLay, Mrs. Cubin,
Mr. Shadegg, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas,
Mr. Dickey, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Largent,
Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr.
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr.
Tiahrt, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hansen,
Mr. Crane, Mr. Armey, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Cannon, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. McInnis, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Mr. Linder, Mr. Spence, Mr. Dreier,
Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Radanovich, Mr.
Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Traficant, Mrs. Fowler, Mr.
Wicker, Mr. Camp, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Collins, Mr.
Cunningham, Mr. Baker, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Cook, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Hunter, Mr. King,
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Packard, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Tauzin, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Gary Miller of California,
Mr. McCrery, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Bliley, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Mica, Mr.
Weldon of Florida, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Rogan, Mr.
Simpson, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Callahan, Mr.
Everett, and Mr. Herger):
H.R. 1922. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for election
for Federal office; to the Committee on House Administration,
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. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Frost,
Ms. Sanchez, and Mrs. Thurman):
H.R. 1923. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to restore the exclusion from gross income for damage
awards for emotional distress; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. GEKAS:
H.R. 1924. A bill to prevent Federal agencies from pursuing
policies of unjustifiable nonacquiescence in, and
relitigation of, precedents established in the Federal
judicial courts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin:
H.R. 1925. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit sex offenders from entering National Parks; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HEFLEY (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Mr. Shows, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Diaz-Balart, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Schaffer, Mr.
Fossella, Mr. English, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Whitfield, Ms. Granger, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs.
Kelly, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Fletcher, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Shays, Mr.
Filner, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Lucas of
Kentucky, Mr. McGovern, Mr. King, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Hostettler):
H.R. 1926. 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;
to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the
Committee on International Relations, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HOLT (for himself, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, and
Mr. Moore):
H.R. 1927. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to preserve all budget surpluses until legislation is
enacted significantly extending the solvency of the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds; to the Committee on the
Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, and Mr. English):
H.R. 1928. A bill to simplify certain provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Filner,
Mr. Hinchey,
[[Page 10885]]
Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Kanjorski, Ms. Lee, Mr. McDermott,
Ms. Rivers, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr.
Stark):
H.R. 1929. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act to control the disclosure by financial institutions of
personal financial information of customers of the
institutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. LOBIONDO:
H.R. 1930. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to require the operator of a World Wide Web site that offers
to provide communication with any prisoner to disclose on the
site the crime for which the prisoner is incarcerated and the
release date for the prisoner; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. McCOLLUM (for himself, Mr. Royce, Mr. Bachus,
and Mrs. Roukema):
H.R. 1931. A bill to require agreements entered into
between depository institutions and private parties relating
to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to be made
available to the public and the appropriate Federal banking
agency, to require each party to the agreement to regular
report to such agency any amount received from other parties,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
By Mr. ROEMER (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Souder, Mrs. Northup, Mr.
Bliley, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cummings, Ms.
Danner, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Frost, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Holden, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kennedy
of Rhode Island, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. LaFalce, Mr.
LaHood, Mr. Martinez, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Pastor, Mr.
Romero-Barcelo, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Quinn, Mr.
Sandlin, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi,
Mr. Underwood, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Waxman,
Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Pickering, Mr. Kind, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Wamp, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Woolsey, Mr.
Hill of Indiana, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Moore, Mr. Inslee, Mr.
Pomeroy, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Dooley of California, Mrs.
Thurman, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Costello, Mr.
Green of Texas, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Bonior, Mr.
Snyder, Mr. Wu, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Larson,
Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Turner, Mr. Scott, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Hoyer,
Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Doyle, Mrs.
Capps, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Engel, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. McCarthy
of New York, Mr. Gilman, and Mr. Mascara):
H.R. 1932. A bill to authorize the President to award a
gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Father Theodore M.
Hesburgh, in recognition of his outstanding and enduring
contributions to civil rights, higher education, the Catholic
Church, the Nation, and the global community; to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. SALMON (for himself and Mr. Tancredo):
H.R. 1933. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to provide for parental notification
and consent prior to enrollment of a child in a bilingual
education program or a special alternative instructional
program for limited English proficient students; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr.
LoBiondo):
H.R. 1934. A bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972 to establish the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal
Rescue Assistance Grant Program; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. McGovern, and Mr.
Strickland):
H.R. 1935. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
strengthen the limitations on participation by the Armed
Forces in overseas airshows and trade exhibitions involving
military equipment; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. STARK:
H.R. 1936. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to prevent overpayment for hospital discharges
to post-acute care services by eliminating the limitation on
the number of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) subject to the
special transfer policy; to the Committee on Ways and Means,
and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. TANCREDO:
H.R. 1937. A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, to allow grants
received under such Act to be used to establish and maintain
school violence hotlines; to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
By Mr. WEXLER:
H.R. 1938. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to require appropriate training and
certification for suppliers of certain listed items of
orthotics or prosthetics; 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. WEYGAND (for himself, Mr. Stark, Ms. Norton, Mr.
Gilchrest, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Frost, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Spratt, Mr.
Costello, Mr. English, Mr. Shows, Mr. Foley, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Hilliard, Mrs. Kelly, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Roemer, Mr.
Snyder, Mr. Goode, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Watt of North
Carolina, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
LaHood, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Berman, Mr. Mollohan, Mr.
Sandlin, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Davis of Florida,
Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Danner, Mr. Holden, Mrs. Capps,
Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey):
H.R. 1939. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to
allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for Alzheimer's
disease research through the voluntary purchase of certain
specially issued United States postage stamps; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 1940. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to clarify the tax treatment of Settlement Trusts
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CONDIT (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Turner, Mr. Lantos,
Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wise, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Towns, Mr. Shows, Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii,
Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Fattah, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Blagojevich, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Ford, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Romero-Barcelo,
and Mr. Stupak):
H.R. 1941. A bill to protect the privacy of personally
identifiable health information; to the Committee on
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Government
Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KUYKENDALL (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Bateman, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Horn, Mr.
Scarborough, and Mr. Taylor of Mississippi):
H. Con. Res. 112. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp
should be issued in honor of the S.S. LANE VICTORY; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Ford, and
Mr. Minge):
H. Con. Res. 113. A concurrent resolution expressing the
commitment of Congress to address the emergency that
currently exists in American agriculture; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. BOEHLERT:
H. Con. Res. 114. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be issued
as a testimonial to the Nation's tireless commitment to
reuniting America's missing children with their families, and
to honor the memories of those children who were victims of
abduction and murder; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. FORBES:
H. Con. Res. 115. A concurrent resolution expressing the
support of the Congress for activities to increase public
awareness of the dangers of pediatric cancer; to the
Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. FORD (for himself, Mr. George Miller of
California, and Mr. Matsui):
H. Con. Res. 116. A concurrent resolution expressing
congressional support for the International Labor
Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. ROTHMAN:
H. Con. Res. 117. A concurrent resolution concerning United
Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/6; to the Committee
on International Relations.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Pascrell,
Mr. Gilman, Mr. Porter, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Greenwood, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. King, Mr.
Engel, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Hefley, Mrs.
Maloney of New York, and Mr. Olver):
H. Con. Res. 118. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress regarding the culpability of Slobodan
Milosevic for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide in the former Yugoslavia, and for
[[Page 10886]]
other purposes; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself and Mr.
Rohrabacher):
H. Res. 187. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the United States should seek to
prevent any Talibanled government in Afghanistan from
obtaining a seat in the United Nations, and should refuse to
recognize any Afghan government, while gross violations of
human rights persist against women and girls there; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. FROST:
H. Res. 188. A resolution designating minority membership
on certain standing committees of the House; considered and
agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 11: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 85: Ms. Norton and Mrs. Maloney of New York.
H.R. 111: Mr. Engel Ms. Lee, and Mr. Brown of California.
H.R. 151: Mr. McIntosh.
H.R. 165: Ms. Waters and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 206: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 218: Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Crane, Mr. Baker,
and Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 263: Mr. Watkins and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 264: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 274: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Horn, and Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 306: Mr. Shays and Mr. McIntosh.
H.R. 315: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Wu, Mrs.
Napolitano, Ms. Velazquez, and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 347: Mr. Jones of North Carolina and Mr. Shows.
H.R. 353: Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hall
of Ohio, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Davis of
Florida, Mr. Costello, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 354: Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Luther,
and Mr. Pease.
H.R. 355: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 358: Mr. Kind.
H.R. 363: Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 382: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
H.R. 405: Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Boyd.
H.R. 424: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Mollohan.
H.R. 445: Mr. Luther.
H.R. 483: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 500: Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
H.R. 531: Mr. Tiahrt.
H.R. 544: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 583: Mr. Hilleary and Mr. Wise.
H.R. 595: Mr. Holden and Mr. Hoeffel.
H.R. 599: Mr. Tierney, Mr. Olver, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.
H.R. 611: Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma.
H.R. 612: Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Meek
of Florida, Mr. Blagojevich, Ms. Danner, and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 700: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Lewis of
Georgia.
H.R. 721: Mr. Callahan and Mr. Latham.
H.R. 728: Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Riley, Mr.
Sherwood, and Mr. Pombo.
H.R. 731: Mr. Moakley and Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 776: Mr. Green of Texas.
H.R. 777: Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 804: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 815: Mr. Traficant.
H.R. 828: Mr. Matsui.
H.R. 844: Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Crane,
Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Matsui, Mr.
Baker, Mr. Herger, Mr. Souder, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr.
Gutknecht, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 845: Mr. Pastor and Mr. LaFalce.
H.R. 846: Ms. Hooley of Oregon and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 850: Mr. Talent.
H.R. 853: Mr. Royce and Mr. Hall of Texas.
H.R. 859: Mr. Crane and Mr. McCrery.
H.R. 860: Ms. Rivers.
H.R. 865: Mrs. Thurman, Mrs. Wilson, and Mr. Moran of
Virginia.
H.R. 896: Mr. Wicker.
H.R. 902: Ms. Lee, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Engel.
H.R. 915: Mr. Kasich, Mr. Bliley, and Mr. Ford.
H.R. 919: Mr. Olver, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 959: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 1000: Mr. Pickett, Mr. Clay, and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Quinn, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Olver, Mr. Kucinich,
and Ms. Rivers.
H.R. 1055: Mr. Hilleary and Mr. Armey.
H.R. 1057: Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Norton, Mr. Watt of North
Carolina, Mr. Blagojevich, and Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1063: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 1070: Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Deal
of Georgia, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. Wicker.
H.R. 1071: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky and Mrs. McCarthy of New
York.
H.R. 1081: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 1168: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Evans.
H.R. 1172: Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Klink, Mr.
Lucas of Kentucky, Ms. Carson, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Kennedy of
Rhode Island, Mr. Regula, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Wamp, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Burr of North Carolina,
Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Souder, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. English, and Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 1180: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Tierney,
Mr. Spence, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Shows.
H.R. 1193: Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Cooksey.
H.R. 1194: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 1208: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 1209: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 1248: Mrs. Northup.
H.R. 1259: Mr. Condit, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Cramer, Mr.
Thompson of California, Mr. Shows, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr.
McIntosh.
H.R. 1273: Mr. Cox, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Largent, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Stearns, Mrs. Cubin,
Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Norwood, and Mr.
Whitfield.
H.R. 1275: Mr. Tierney, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Bass, Mr. Baldacci, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Lewis of California, and Mr. Cook.
H.R. 1300: Mr. Sherman, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Wise, and Mr.
Goodling.
H.R. 1304: Mr. Forbes, Mr. Owens, Mr. Smith of New Jersey,
Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Cook, Mr. McNulty, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Peterson
of Minnesota, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Ose, and Mr. Graham.
H.R. 1317: Mr. Duncan and Mr. Bishop.
H.R. 1330: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 1344: Mr. Whitfield.
H.R. 1354: Mr. Hefley, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Nethercutt.
H.R. 1434: Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1436: Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1437: Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1438: Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1439: Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1443: Ms. Pelosi.
H.R. 1448: Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Fossella.
H.R. 1484: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 1495: Mr. Barcia, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Bonior, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Crowley, and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 1525: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Kaptur, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Blagojevich, and Mr. Vento.
H.R. 1545: Mr. Strickland, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Blumenauer, and
Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 1546: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Talent, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, and Mrs. Bono.
H.R. 1578: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Baker, Mr. Hayworth,
Mr. Souder, and Mr. Hilleary.
H.R. 1590: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 1604: Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
Wamp, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Cummings, and Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 1622: Mr. Wu and Mr. Cook.
H.R. 1627: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1634: Mr. Oxley, Mr. Bryant, and Mr. Taylor of North
Carolina.
H.R. 1648: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Waters,
Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Sisisky.
H.R. 1673: Mr. Green of Texas.
H.R. 1689: Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Franks of New Jersey.
H.R. 1702: Mr. Towns and Mr. Owens.
H.R. 1707: Mr. Hefley.
H.R. 1713: Mr. Talent, Mr. Gary Miller of California, and
Mr. Watkins.
H.R. 1717: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 1748: Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 1750: Mr. Allen, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Berman, and Mr.
Sanders.
H.R. 1768: Mr. Ford and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1791: Mrs. Morella and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 1794: Mr. Gilman, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Rohrabacher, and
Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1795: Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. McNulty, and Mr.
Frost.
H.R. 1841: Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 1850: Mr. Kasich, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Barrett
of Wisconsin, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1857: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 1861: Mr. Hayworth.
H.R. 1862: Mr. Shows and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 1863: Mr. Watkins and Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 1882: Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Hill of Montana.
H.J. Res. 33: Mr. Barton of Texas and Mr. Blagojevich.
H.J. Res. 38: Mr. Shays.
H.J. Res. 46: Mr. Hyde and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.J. Res. 47: Ms. Danner.
H.J. Res. 55: Mr. Sessions.
H. Con. Res. 77: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky and Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii.
H. Con. Res. 107: Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Latham, Mr.
Hoekstra, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr. Aderholt, and
Mr. Gutknecht.
H. Con. Res. 109: Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Fossella, and Mr.
Rangel.
[[Page 10887]]
H. Res. 34: Mr. Wu.
____________________
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:
H.R. 1259
Offered By: Mr. Traficant
Amendment No. 2: Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 6. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND
DISABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM AND THE HOSPITAL
INSURANCE PROGRAM.
It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the moneys of the United States held for purposes of
the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program and
the hospital insurance program maintained under the Social
Security Act and related laws of the United States should
always be held in separate and independent trust funds and
should always be segregated from all other moneys of the
United States,
(2) the receipts and disbursements of such programs
(including revenues dedicated to such programs) should never
be included in any budget totals set forth in the budget of
the United States Government as prepared by the President or
any budget prepared by the Congress,
(3) the Congress should never make any law authorizing the
use of such trust funds for any purpose other than for
providing for the prompt and effective payment of benefits,
payment of administrative expenses, and payment of such
amounts as may be necessary and appropriate to correct prior
incorrect payments, and no agency or instrumentality of the
United States, or any officer or employee thereof, should
ever be authorized to use, or to authorize the use of, such
trust funds for any such other purpose, and
(4) as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Congress should consider for adoption a
constitutional amendment which would establish the policies
described in this section as the permanent law of the United
States.
H.R. 1401
Offered By: Mr. Bereuter
Amendment No. 3: At the end of title X (page 305, after
line 5), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1040. ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES.
(a) Waiver of Charges.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
waive reimbursement of the costs of conferences, seminars,
courses of instruction, or similar educational activities of
the Asia-Pacific Center for military officers and civilian
officials of foreign nations of the Asia-Pacific region if
the Secretary determines that attendance by such persons
without reimbursement is in the national security interest of
the United States.
(2) In this section, the term ``Asia-Pacific Center'' means
the Department of Defense organization within the United
States Pacific Command known as the Asia-Pacific Center for
Security Studies.
(b) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense may
accept, on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Center, foreign gifts
or donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance the
operation of, the Asia-Pacific Center.
(2) The Secretary may not accept a gift or donation under
paragraph (1) if the acceptance of the gift or donation would
compromise or appear to compromise--
(A) the ability of the Department of Defense, any employee
of the Department, or members of the Armed Forces to carry
out any responsibility or duty of the Department in a fair
and objective manner; or
(B) the integrity of any program of the Department of
Defense or of any person involved in such a program.
(3) The Secretary shall prescribe written guidance setting
forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the
acceptance of a foreign gift or donation would have a result
described in paragraph (2).
(4) Funds accepted by the Secretary under paragraph (1)
shall be credited to appropriations available to the
Department of Defense for the Asia-Pacific Center. Funds so
credited shall be merged with the appropriations to which
credited and shall be available to the Asia-Pacific Center
for the same purposes and same period as the appropriations
with which merged.
(5) If the total amount of funds accepted under paragraph
(1) in any fiscal year exceeds $2,000,000, the Secretary
shall notify Congress of the amount of those donations for
that fiscal year. Any such notice shall list each of the
contributors of such amounts and the amount of each
contribution in that fiscal year.
(6) For purposes of this subsection, a foreign gift or
donation is a gift or donation of funds, materials (including
research materials), property, or services (including lecture
services and faculty services) from a foreign government, a
foundation or other charitable organization in a foreign
country, or an individual in a foreign country.
H.R. 1401
Offered By: Mr. Bereuter
Amendment No. 4: At the end of title X (page 305, after
line 5), insert the following new section:
SEC. __. REPORT ON EFFECT OF CONTINUED BALKAN OPERATIONS ON
ABILITY OF UNITED STATES TO SUCCESSFULLY MEET
OTHER REGIONAL CONTINGENCIES.
(a) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report describing the effect of continued
operations by the Armed Forces in the Balkans region on the
ability of the United States, through the period covered by
the current Future-Years Defense Plan of the Department of
Defense, to prosecute to a successful conclusion a major
contingency in the Asia-Pacific region or to prosecute to a
successful conclusion two nearly simultaneous major theater
wars, in accordance with the most recent Quadrennial Defense
Review.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report under subsection
(a) shall set forth the following:
(1) In light of continued Balkan operations, the
capabilities and limitations of United States combat, combat
support, and combat service support forces (at national,
operational, and tactical levels and operating in a joint and
coalition environment) to expeditiously respond to,
prosecute, and achieve United States strategic objectives in
the event of--
(A) a contingency on the Korean peninsula; or
(B) two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
(2) The confidence level of the Secretary of Defense in
United States military capabilities to successfully prosecute
a Pacific contingency, and to successfully prosecute two
nearly simultaneous major theater wars, while remaining
engaged at current or greater force levels in the Balkans,
together with the rationale and justification for each such
confidence level.
(3) Identification of high-value platforms, systems,
capabilities, and skills that--
(A) during a Pacific contingency, would be stressed or
broken and at what point such stressing or breaking would
occur; and
(B) during two nearly simultaneous major theater wars,
would be stressed or broken and at what point such stressing
or breaking would occur.
(4) During continued military operations in the Balkans,
the effect on the ``operations tempo'', and on the
``personnel tempo'', of the Armed Forces--
(A) of a Pacific contingency; and
(B) of two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
(5) During continued military operations in the Balkans,
the required type and quantity of high-value platforms,
systems, capabilities, and skills to prosecute successfully--
(A) a Pacific contingency; and
(B) two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
(c) Consultation.--In preparing the report under this
section, the Secretary of Defense shall use the resources and
expertise of the unified commands, the military departments,
the combat support agencies, and the defense components of
the intelligence community and shall consult with non-
Department elements of the intelligence community, as
required, and other such entities within the Department of
Defense as the Secretary considers necessary.
H.R. 1401
Offered By: Mr. Metcalf
Amendment No. 5: At the end of title VII (page 238, after
line 22), insert the following new section:
SEC. __. REVIEW OF RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH REGARDING
GULF WAR ILLNESSES AND RESEARCH TO REPLICATE OR
DISPUTE THE RESULTS.
(a) Requirement To Conduct Review.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall review the independent research conducted
regarding the presence and detection of squalene antibodies
in the blood of veterans of the Persian Gulf War, as
described in the report of the General Accounting Office
numbered GAO/NSIAD-99-5, and the possible relationship
between the presence of squalene antibodies and the complex
of illnesses and symptoms known as Gulf War syndrome.
(b) Requirement to Conduct Additional Research.--The
Secretary shall conduct research on the presence and
detection of squalene antibodies in the blood of veterans of
the Persian Gulf War designed to replicate or dispute the
results of the independent research reviewed under subsection
(a).
(c) Comptroller General Review.--The Comptroller General
shall review the results of the Secretary's review and
research and submit to Congress a report evaluating the
merits of the Secretary's review and research.
H.R. 1401
Offered By: Mr. Roemer
Amendment No. 6: At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after
line 15), insert the following new section:
[[Page 10888]]
SEC. 31__. REPORT ON COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
PRACTICES AT NATIONAL LABORATORIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Congress a report for
the preceding year on counterintelligence and security
practices at the facilities of the national laboratories
(whether or not classified activities are carried out at the
facility).
(b) Content of Report.--The report shall include, with
respect to each national laboratory, the following:
(1) The number of full-time counterintelligence and
security professionals employed.
(2) A description of the counterintelligence and security
training courses conducted and, for each such course, any
requirement that employees successfully complete that course.
(3) A description of each contract awarded that provides an
incentive for the effective performance of
counterintelligence or security activities.
(4) A description of the services provided by the employee
assistance programs.
(5) A description of any requirement that an employee
report the foreign travel of that employee (whether or not
the travel was for official business).
(6) A description of any visit by the Secretary or by the
Deputy Secretary of Energy, a purpose of which was to
emphasize to employees the need for effective
counterintelligence and security practices.
H.R. 1906
Offered By: Mr. Chabot
Amendment No. 17: Insert before the short title the
following new section:
Sec. _. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be used to award any
new allocations under the market access program or to pay the
salaries of personnel to award such allocations.
H.R. 1906
Offered by: Ms. Kaptur
Amendment No. 18: In the third paragraph under the headings
``Rural Housing Service'' and ``rural housing insurance fund
program account (including transfers of funds)'', strike the
period at the end of the paragraph and insert the following:
``: Provided, That of this amount the Secretary of
Agriculture may transfer up to $7,000,000 to the
appropriation for `Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers'.''.
[[Page 10889]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
May 25, 1999
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO CLARIFY THE TAX TREATMENT OF SETTLEMENT
TRUSTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to
clarify the tax treatment of Settlement Trusts authorized by the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. This legislation is very similar to a
bill that I introduced with my colleagues, Congressmen George Miller
and J.D. Hayworth, last Congress.
The bill has been further improved from last Congress and a companion
measure was introduced in the Senate recently. The bill's introduction
in the House before the Memorial Day recess is aimed at expediting
consideration of it in Congress and within the executive branch. Once
the recess has ended, I am expecting that the original cosponsors from
last year as well as additional cosponsors will reintroduce the
legislation for consideration in the House.
At the time the bill is reintroduced, those Members cosponsoring it
and I will submit for our colleagues' information a detailed
explanation of the bill along with background and history relating to
it.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THELMA BARRIOS
______
HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Thelma Barrios, who
this year is receiving the 3rd annual Chief Dominick J. Rivetti Award
from the San Fernando Police Advisory Council. Thelma is editor and
publisher of the San Fernando Sun, a weekly publication that serves San
Fernando and the surrounding area. In an age of media conglomerates,
and 24-hour news channels, the Sun is an excellent reminder of the
value of a good community newspaper. Thelma works hard to make sure
that local politics, community news and interesting activities
involving Northeast Valley residents receive extensive coverage in the
pages of her newspaper. Over the years I have found the Sun a pleasure
to read.
Thelma's accomplishments are all the more remarkable considering the
trajectory of her career. She started working at the Sun nearly 40
years ago as a bill collector, answering an ad that asked ``for a man
to do collections.'' That minor detail didn't deter Thelma, who went in
and applied for the job anyway. The owner of the Sun, L.A. Copeland,
offered Thelma the job, telling her that results were more important
than whether he hired a man or a woman.
Thelma flourished at the paper. She went from bill collector, to
telephone operator, to member of the classified advertising department
and, finally, editor and publisher. It was a perfect match. Thelma
works tremendously hard putting out the Sun each week. At the same
time, she is never too busy to take another press release or listen to
another story idea.
Though it's hard to believe, Thelma is not a San Fernando native.
Along with her family, she came to California from Ohio in the early
1940s. Not long after the move, she met her future husband, Joseph
Barrios, when the two of them worked together at a movie theater near
downtown Los Angeles. Thelma and her husband, who passed away a few
years ago, made the move to San Fernando soon after the end of World
War II.
The Barrios family has strong ties to the city; Joe was a member of
the San Fernando Police Force for 32 years.
Thelma has won two separate national journalism contests sponsored by
the University of Missouri, and is the recipient of several awards from
the Valley Press Club. The Dominick J. Rivetti Award, named in honor of
my dear friend and the Chief of Police in San Fernando, recognizes
Thelma's extraordinary contributions to the city.
I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Thelma Barrios, whose
dedication to her craft and devotion to her community inspire us all.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ALLEN L. SAMSON
______
HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Allen L. Samson,
president, Liberty Bank, who on June 15, 1999 will receive the Star of
David Award given by the Israel Bonds organization, Milwaukee. This
award recognizes Allen for his support of Israel's economic
development, involvement in humanitarian causes and his distinguished
service to the community.
Allan Samson received his undergraduate and law degrees from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. He served as deputy district attorney
for Milwaukee County and was a founding partner in a local law firm.
Allen changed careers in 1973 and concentrated his efforts on American
Medical Services, a business founded by his father, which operated
nursing homes and pharmacies. He served as the company's vice president
for 10 years when he became the chief executive officer, as position he
held until 1990. In 1994, Allen and a small group of investors
purchased Liberty Bank, a community bank which specializes in servicing
small businesses and individuals. Allen is currently president and
chief executive officer of Liberty Bank.
Allen has been an active leader in the Jewish community where he has
received numerous awards and accolades. His support for Israel Bonds,
the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, the Milwaukee Jewish Home and Care
Center is unprecedented. He has been active in the United Way of
Greater Milwaukee, earing the prestigious Fleur de Lis Award in 1996
for Excellent Achievement. He is active in many leadership positions in
the Milwaukee-area arts community including the symphony and the art
museum.
A devoted husband to Vicki Boxer for 21 years, Allen is the proud
father of Daniel, Rachel, David and Nancy. He is a loving and doting
grandfather.
Congratulations, Allen. You are truly deserving of this year's Star
of David Award.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather I, along with
several other Members of Congress, was unavoidably detained in
Massachusetts on the afternoon of May 24, 1999, and was therefore
unable to cast a vote on rollcall votes 145 and 146. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 145, and ``yea'' on
rollcall 146.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF HUMANITARIAN SIDNEY WEINER
______
HON. RICHARD E. NEAL
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to recognize a significant milestone in the life of Sidney
Weiner. On June 22, 1999, Sidney was presented the 17th annual
Humanitarian Award by Congregation Kodimoh. Sidney Weiner has spent his
life volunteering on behalf of many organizations in the community, and
I would like to make note today of his many accomplishments.
Sidney was born in Worcester, MA, but moved to Springfield as a
teenager. He attended Springfield public schools and eventually married
Gert Levi at the old Kodimoh on Oakland St. in 1947. He operated many
successful service stations and worked as an insurance agent before
retiring in 1972.
[[Page 10890]]
Sidney's volunteer service, in his adult life, has been unparalleled.
He was a volunteer for the Pioneer Valley Red Cross, through which he
recruited countless blood donors. He has also practiced what he has
preached, being a 10 gallon donor himself. Sidney is a 32d degree mason
and has been Master of the Chicopee Lodge and District Deputy Grand
Master of the Chicopee 18th Masonic District. Since joining the Melha
Temple Shrine in 1959, Sidney has chaired their blood program. He has
also brought smiles to countless children through his membership and
participation in the Melha Clown Unit.
Sidney has been a volunteer at Baystate Medical Center for nearly 20
years. In 1990, he was elected the first male president of the Baystate
Medical Center Auxiliary. Sidney has also been involved with the Ronald
McDonald House. In fact, his involvement began even before the house
was built almost 10 years ago. He has held many various titles there,
and is currently the president of the board of directors. For the past
3 years, Sidney has been chairman of Parking for the Rays of Hope Walk,
which raises funds each fall for breast cancer research. He and his
wife, Gert, also spend every Sunday in July and August volunteering at
Tanglewood. Sidney is a long-time member of Kodimoh and its
Brotherhood, and is a regular minyanaire. He has also been a regular
volunteer on various projects and committees with Kodimoh. Sidney and
Gert's daughter, Nancy Squires, and her husband, Bill, and their three
daughters, Maxine, Sarah, and Michelle, are also active members of
Kodimoh.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to pay tribute to the service, commitment, and
character of Sidney Weiner. He has proven himself to be an
indispensable member of his community through his service and
leadership. Sidney Weiner is truly a role model for community
involvement and pride in his faith. Kodimoh, and the entire Western
Massachusetts community, has been blessed to have been touched by
Sidney Weiner's involvement and service.
____________________
ZONTA CLUB OF OAK PARK CELEBRATES ITS 65TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Zonta Club
of Oak Park, Illinois. The Zonta Club of Oak Park was organized in
February 1934 and was chartered on May 26 that same year. It is the
127th chapter of Zonta International, a worldwide service organization
of executives in business and the workforce that began in 1919 to
advance the status of American women. The Zonta Club of Oak Park will
be celebrating its 65th anniversary on May 26, 1999.
The Zonta Club of Oak Park has contributed time and money and has
worked tirelessly for women's rights since it was organized. Throughout
its history, the Zonta Club of Oak Park has supported many local
organizations, such as the alliance for the Mentally Ill, Cook County
Hospital, Literacy Volunteers of Western Cook County and the
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. The Club also gives financial
support to international service projects selected by Zonta
International through the United Nations and has directly affected the
fate of more than 700,000 women and girls through projects in countries
such as Argentina, Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Jordan and Zimbabwe.
The Zonta Club of Oak Park has a strong dedication to women's higher
education and has supported literacy projects. The Club supports the
Young Women in Pubic Affairs scholarship program by recognizing and
awarding scholarships to local high school seniors to encourage young
women to enter careers or seek leadership positions in social
policymaking, government and volunteer organizations. The Club also
gives financial support to the Amelia Earhart fellowship award program,
which was founded in 1938 to support women pursuing graduate degrees in
aerospace-related sciences and engineering. The program has supported
more than 500 women from forty-eight countries in more than 800
fellowships.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the work of the Zonta Club of Oak Park and
their efforts to promote literacy, fight domestic violence and
encourage students to participate in international service projects. I
am pleased to congratulate them on their 65th anniversary.
____________________
RUSS MORGAN HONORED
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Russ
Morgan Orchestra as it celebrates more than sixty years in the
entertainment business. I am pleased and proud to bring this worthy
milestone to the attention of my colleagues.
Born in Scranton, Russ Morgan grew up in my hometown of Nanticoke.
After working in the coal mines to earn money for his music education,
he began playing the piano at a Scranton theater for extra money at the
age of 14. Morgan went on to play trombone with a local band called the
``Scranton Sirens,'' with notable colleagues like Tommy Dorsey, Jimmy
Dorsey, and Billy Lustig. When he was 18, Russ left Pennsylvania for
New York City to find his fortune in the music business. By the time he
was 25, he was arranging music for John Phillip Sousa and Victor
Herbert. After playing for Paul Specht and touring Europe with Specht's
orchestra, Morgan went to Detroit to work with Jean Goldkette on
forming a new band. There, he was reunited with the Dorsey brothers and
some of his other associates from his early career. Eventually, Morgan
became Musical Director of WXYZ in Detroit with his own very popular
show. He also showcased his classical talent by arranging for the
Detroit Symphony.
At about this time in his career, Morgan was sidelined by a serious
automobile accident that forced him to spend months in the hospital.
Upon his recovery, he returned to New York City to restart his career
by arranging music for all the famous night clubs of the time and many
Broadway shows. In 1934, he worked at Brunswick Records, where he met
his wife and became friends with the famous Rudy Vallee. Morgan was
encouraged to form his own orchestra and Vallee got him his first
engagement at the famous Biltmore Hotel. Following an impressive 4
years at the Biltmore, Morgan played on television and at most of the
famous hotels and resorts of the era. On one recording he made during
that period, he used a quartet that would later become the famous Ames
Brothers. In 1965, with sons Jack and David in the ensemble, Russ
Morgan began a long engagement in Las Vegas that was cut short only by
his death in 1969.
Mr. Speaker, the Russ Morgan Orchestra, now in the able hands of his
son Jack, has been bringing us wonderful music for over six decades.
The ensemble's founder never forgot his roots as a young coal miner in
Northeastern Pennsylvania. I extend my best wishes for continued
success to Jack and the Morgan family as they carry on the legacy of
the great Russ Morgan on this milestone anniversary. What greater
tribute could his beloved son pay him, than to carry on his music to
new generations.
____________________
MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL AIR AND TRADE SHOWS
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to stop
the use of taxpayer funds from subsidizing the U.S. defense industry at
international air and trade shows.
Prior to 1991 the federal government avoided any direct military
involvement in air shows and arms bazaars. For the first time, during
the Bush administration, military personnel and equipment were
permitted in foreign air shows and weapons exhibitions. The aircraft
used, during these air shows and weapons exhibitions, is paid for with
American taxpayer dollars. The fees involved include the cost of
insurance, ramp fees, transportation to and from the show and payment
for government personnel needed to attend and monitor the show. In June
of 1991 the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce changed the practice
that the Pentagon had previously followed of leasing U.S. aircraft to
industry at air shows. The practice adopted allows for the loan of the
Department of Defense (DoD) aircraft to defense contractors free of
charge. This means that taxpayers pay for the cost of industry
participation at air shows and arms bazaars. If taxpayers are not
sharing in the profits made during the air shows and arms exhibitions,
why should they share in the cost?
An example of this wasteful practice occurred in Singapore in 1992,
during an air show intended to demonstrate new marine aviation
technology. The Marine aircraft crashed and the American taxpayers were
left with a bill of $18.9 million. In response to the crash Congressman
Howard Berman sponsored an amendment to the FY93 Authorization bill
which puts a limit on the government's
[[Page 10891]]
ability to participate in air shows. The amendment requires the
President to notify Congress 45 days prior to any participation in
further air shows. It also requires that participation be in the
interest of national security. In addition, the amendment requires a
cost estimate to be submitted to Congress as well.
In order to side step the Berman amendment, DoD sends aircraft and
personnel to air shows on so called ``training missions.'' This
fulfills the requirement that the air show be in the interest of
national security.
It is important to look at the total cost of foreign air shows in
order to realize the abuse by the federal government on the American
taxpayer. A conservative calculation of the total cost of taxpayer
subsidies for 1996 and 1997 was at least $68.4 million. That is an
average of $34.2 million per year wasted at foreign airshows and arms
bazaars. This figure is up over 31 percent over the period from 1994 to
1995.
The Clinton administration has been underreporting cost and
involvement to the U.S. by excluding transportation costs to and from
the foreign shows. The costs reported by the Pentagon to Congress are
15 to 20 times less than the actual costs, leaving the U.S. taxpayer to
pick up the tab. An example of this practice is the transfer of a B-2
bomber from the United States to France for a demonstration at an air
show in Paris in 1995. This flight to Paris involved at least a 24-hour
round trip ticket. The cost to operate the plane for one hour is
$14,166, for a cost of over $330,000. The total cost submitted to
Congress by the Pentagon to cover the entire show was underestimated at
$342,916.
The bill I am introducing today, the ``Restrictions on Foreign Air
Shows Act'' bans any further direct participation of Defense personnel
and equipment at air shows unless the defense industry pays for the
advertising and use of the DoD wares. The bill prohibits sending
planes, equipment, weapons, or any other related material to any
overseas air show unless the contractor has paid for the expenses
incurred by DoD. If a contractor decides to participate in the air
show, he or she must lease the equipment, cover insurance costs, ramp
fees, transportation fees, and any other costs associated with the air
show. If a contractor is making a profit by showing the aircraft, they
will also be required to pay for the advertisement and use of the
aircraft. In addition, military and government personnel will not be
allowed at the show unless the contractor pays for their services
during the air show.
This bill in no way outlaws the use of U.S. Aircraft or other
equipment in foreign air shows or other trade exhibitions. The bill
simply takes the financial burden off of the American taxpayer and puts
it on the defense contractor. I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CRUISE LINE INDUSTRY IN ALASKA AND
THE UNITED STATES
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address an issue
that is very critical to the constituents of my home State of Alaska.
The issue I wish to speak about is the significant contribution which
the cruise line industry has made to the great State of Alaska and this
country.
Alaska is a State where the land mass is larger than all of the
Northeastern and Great Lakes States put together. Approximately 600,000
Americans live there. Many Americans have heard of Alaska and have some
image of its wildness but fewer than 10 percent of Americans have ever
visited. Nonetheless, the opportunity for Americans to visit this great
state has increased tenfold with the presence of the cruise industry.
Furthermore, the economic benefits that the cruise lines bring have
greatly impacted Alaska.
Recently, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) and Wharton Econometric
Forecasting Associates concluded a Study on the Economic Impact of the
Cruise Industry on the U.S. economy. This study reveals that the cruise
industry spent $6.6 billion in the United States in 1997, and generated
an additional $5 billion of impact on the economy. In the United States
alone, the cruise lines purchased $1.8 billion in transportation from
airlines, $794 million in fuel and lubricants, $626 million in business
services, $1 billion in financial services, and $600 million in food
and beverage supplies. In the State of Alaska in 1998, the cruise
industry spent with Alaskan business and service providers
$363,274,000. These statistics are significant and make clear that the
cruise industry has benefited both the state of Alaska and our Nation.
This study also reveals that the cruise industry created 176,433 jobs
for U.S. citizens in 1997. These jobs included direct employment by the
industry and jobs attributable to the U.S. based cruise line suppliers
and industry partners. Through its annual growth of 6-10 percent, the
industry is responsible for thousands of new jobs every year for
Americans. The cruise industry is the single largest direct employer in
the maritime sector of the United States. In my State of Alaska in
1998, the cruise industry was responsible for the employment of 17,189
Alaskans. That is 3 percent of the population of our State.
Another issue that I wish to address is the matter regarding Federal
and State taxation of the cruise industry. Some critics state that the
cruise industry does not pay federal and state taxes in the United
States. This statement is false. In fact the recently completed study
revealed that the industry pays millions of dollars in taxes each year.
In 1997, the cruise industry paid over $1 billion in Federal, State,
and local taxes in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the contributions made by the
cruise industry to our great Nation. The benefits have been abundant,
both throughout this nation and in my home State, Alaska. In view of
the many contributions, I wish to acknowledge the vital role which the
cruise industry plays in sustaining the economy and the maritime sector
of this country.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FRANKYE SCHNEIDER
______
HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to may dear friend,
Frankye Schneider, who this year is being honored by the 40th Assembly
District of the Democratic party. For more than two decades, Frankye
held the position of senior deputy to Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed
Edelman. Frankye has always considered it an honor to work in politics.
She cherished the opportunity to use the resources and power of
government to help individual citizens.
Frankye was the perfect model of a professional and compassionate
staff person. She was never too busy to listen to the concerns of
another resident, and to speak out on behalf of a homeowners'
association, chamber of commerce or non-profit agency. Although
districts in Los Angeles County contain more people than many states,
it somehow seemed as if everyone was on a first-name basis with
Frankye.
It would be impossible in such a short space to mention each and
every contribution Frankye made to our community during the time she
worked for Supervisor Edelman. The list of people and organizations
that benefitted from her efforts is truly myriad. Frankye had an
extremely wide range of interests, including the arts, the environment,
education, mental health and juvenile justice.
She is a lifetime member of the PTA, immediate past president of the
San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, and a former Board
Member of New Directions for Youth and the United Way. After she left
the staff of Supervisor Edelman, Frankye worked for the Los Angeles
County Museum of Art and the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural
History.
Frankye has a deep and abiding interest in the fortunes of the
Democratic Party. She was a founding member and the first chair of the
Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, and she has represented
the 40th Assembly District at California Democratic party conventions
for many years. Frankye also did extensive volunteer work for George
McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign and Tom Bradley's 1973 campaign
for mayor of Los Angeles.
Frankye doesn't know the meaning of the word ``retirement.'' She
continues to stay active in the community and with a variety of
organizations. She also spends as much time as she can with her three
children and four grandchildren.
I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Frankye Schneider, who has
devoted much of her life to bettering the lives of others. Her
dedication and selflessness inspire us all.
[[Page 10892]]
____________________
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPASSE CONTINUES IN BELARUS
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on May 16, the alternative
Presidential election concluded in Belarus within the timeframe
envisioned by the legitimate 1994 Constitution. While the opposition
Central Election Commission (CEC) concluded that the final results of
the voting were invalid because of various violations deriving from the
impediments placed by Belarusian authorities, the ballot served as an
important barometer of democratic engagement by the citizens of
Belarus. In the months leading up to the election, President Alyaksandr
Lukashenka had imprisoned one of the two Presidential candidates--
former Prime Minister Mikhail Chygir--on what were clearly politically
motivated charges, arrested hundreds of election officials and
volunteers, and instituted administrative proceedings against others.
Nevertheless, the authorities were unable to thwart the election in at
least one critically important respect--according to the opposition
CEC, the voting itself was valid because more than half--or 53 percent
of the electorate--participated. When one considers that these were
unsanctioned elections that challenged Lukashenka's legitimacy, this is
a substantial number of people.
No matter what the imperfections, Mr. Speaker, the opposition's
electoral initiative should send a powerful message to Lukashenka.
Clearly, an appreciable number of Belarusian citizens are dissatisfied
with the profoundly negative political and socio-economic fallout
stemming from his dictatorial inclinations and misguided nostalgia for
the Soviet past or some misty ``Slavic Union.'' The vote highlights the
constitutional and political impasse created by Lukashenka's
illegitimate 1996 constitutional referendum, in which he extended his
personal power, disbanded the duly elected 13th Supreme Soviet, and
created a new legislature and constitutional court subservient to him.
Last month, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(Helsinki Commission), which I chair, held a hearing on the situation
in Belarus, with a view toward promoting human rights and democracy
there. Testimony from the State Department, OSCE mission in Belarus,
the Belarusian democratic opposition and several human rights NGOs all
reaffirmed that Belarus is missing out on what one witness
characterized as ``the great market democratic revolution that is
sweeping Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia'' because of
Lukashenka's power grab and backsliding on human rights and democracy.
Despite repeated calls from the international community, including
the Helsinki Commission, for Lukashenka to cease harassment of the
opposition, NGO's and the independent media; allow the opposition
access to the electronic media; create the conditions for free and fair
elections and strengthen the rule of law, we have failed to see
progress in these areas. Indeed, we see more evidence of reversals.
Earlier this year, for example, Lukashenka signed a decree which
introduces extensive restrictions on non-governmental activity and
mandates re-registration--by July 1--of political parties, NGOs and
trade unions. The decree, which among other onerous stipulations
requires that organizations acknowledge the results of Lukashenka's
illegitimate 1996 referendum, is clearly designed to destroy democratic
civil society in Belarus and further consolidate Lukashenka's
repressive rule. Moreover, within the last few months, several
disturbing incidents have occurred, among them the March arrests of
Viktor Gonchar, Chairman of the opposition CEC, and the Chygir
imprisonment, as well as the mysterious disappearances of Tamara
Vinnikova, former chair of the National Bank of Belarus and, on May 10,
Gen. Yuri Zakharenko, former Interior Minister and a leading opponent
of Lukashenka. Just a few days ago, Lukashenka's government announced
that no more foreign priests will be allowed to serve in Belarus,
making it extremely difficult for the Roman Catholic Church, which is
rebuilding following the travails of the Soviet era, to function.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Belarusian Government to comply with
its freely undertaken commitments under the Helsinki Final Act and
subsequent OSCE agreements and to immediately, without preconditions,
convene a genuine dialog with the country's democratic forces and with
the long-suffering Belarusian people.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. AUGUSTO ORTIZ AND MARTHA ORTIZ
______
HON. ED PASTOR
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Augusto
Ortiz and his wife, Mrs. Martha Ortiz. For 50 years, this outstanding
team has provided medical and clinical services to the under-served,
rural and urban, Spanish-speaking populations of Arizona. Dr. Ortiz, a
medical doctor who graduated from the University of Illinois in 1945,
provided the medical services while Martha, who rarely accepted
compensation for her services, acted as the full-time administrator,
personnel director, and business manager of the practice. The
willingness of Dr. and Mrs. Ortiz to forego salaries or their
acceptance of ``pay-what-you-can'' arrangements made medical services
affordable and available to many poor residents of Arizona. Thousands
of Arizonans owe their health and lives to the caring dedication of
this selfless medical team.
Although Dr. Ortiz' family did not have large amounts of money, they
encouraged a love of learning and a dedication to community service.
With these values instilled in him as a young boy in Puerto Rico, Dr.
Ortiz often dreamed of helping underprivileged people when he grew up.
In order to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor to aid indigent
people, Dr. Ortiz had to leave his much loved family and childhood home
to attend medical school in Illinois. Although he was now thousands of
miles away, these early dreams and lessons helped guide and inspire him
to continue toward his goal.
In the early 1950's, while stationed at Luke Air Force Base in
Phoenix, Arizona, Dr. Ortiz took on a Herculean task. He readily agreed
to assist Dr. Carlos Greth with a medical practice that served 80,000
Spanish-speaking people in Maricopa County. At this time, they were the
only Spanish-speaking doctors in Maricopa County.
Aside from generously offering his medical talents, Dr. Ortiz also
became a champion for those that he treated. His political motivation
was his need to ``stand up and speak out'' because he felt ``an
obligation to do something to . . . remedy those problems'' which were
regularly encountered by his patients. Dr. Ortiz was especially active
on behalf of his farm worker patients. He was instrumental in obtaining
an Arizona state ban on the short handled hoe, as well as improving the
Arizona laws regulating pesticides and field sanitation. Dr. Ortiz'
commitment and accomplishments make him an outstanding role model for
the citizen activist. He identified the problems that needed to be
addressed, sought logical, humane remedies for them, and consistently
persuaded political decision makers to agree to the solutions.
Dr. and Mrs. Ortiz not only emphasized preventive health care, they
organized mobile clinics and community health boards to ensure that
this message would be heard and spread throughout many Arizona
communities. In 1972, Dr. Ortiz joined the University of Arizona Rural
Health Office as the Medical Director. Currently, he continues as the
Medical Director of the Rural Health Office while maintaining his rural
mobile clinic practice in three communities. During his tenure, he has
worked tirelessly to encourage the poor and minorities to enter and to
succeed in healthcare professions, while continually working to develop
and deliver better health services for those in need.
Throughout his career, Dr. Ortiz has received many honors and awards,
including: The Arizona Latin-American Medical Association Award; the
Arizona Family Doctor of the Year Award; Distinguished Leadership
Award, American Rural Health Association (national); and the Jefferson
Award for Outstanding Service to the Community, Institute for Public
Service (national).
Dr. Ortiz and Martha deserve the nation's gratitude and respect for
the magnitude of the service they have given for such an extended
period of time. I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in
applauding and honoring this noble doctor, Dr. Augusto Ortiz, and his
admirable wife, Martha Ortiz.
____________________
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
______
speech of
HON. WALLY HERGER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, May 20, 1999
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 883) to
preserve
[[Page 10893]]
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:
Mr. HERGER Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 883, The American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act and am in favor of its passage. The reason I
support this legislation is because it will place constraints on the
Clinton/Gore administration's ability to exercise more Federal land
control. Mr. Speaker, my main concern is not the United Nations. The
United Nations has no more authority than we choose to give it. My
major concern, and the concern of the citizens of my northern
California District, is the continued use of Presidential powers to
exercise Federal land control. This legislation will go a long way in
preventing that. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone's support of
H.R. 883.
____________________
INDIA'S ANTI-AMERICANISM REVEALED AS DEFENSE MINISTER ATTACKS AMERICA
______
HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed to hear that the
Defense Minister of India, George Fernandes, led a meeting of some of
the world's most repressive regimes at which they agreed that their
main goal was to ``stop the United States,'' according to the Indian
Express. Fernandes himself called the United States ``vulgarly
arrogant.'' This should offend anyone who cares about this country.
Countries represented at this meeting, according to the newspaper,
were Communist China--which has been stealing American nuclear secrets
and pouring illegal money into our political campaigns, Libya, Russia,
Serbia--the country we are currently fighting, Saddam Hussein's Iraq,
and Castro's Cuba. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know a bit about Cuba. Castro's
dictatorship in Cuba is one of the most brutal in the world. It has
killed and tortured thousands of its opponents.
By now, we all know the stories of how the Indian government has
killed tens of thousands of Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Dalit
untouchables, and others. Just in recent months, I am informed that an
Australian missionary named Graham Staines and his two young sons were
burned to death in their Jeep by a militant theocratic Hindu
Nationalist gang affiliated with the RSS, which is also, I am told, the
parent organization of the ruling BJP. I am informed that there are 17
freedom movements in India and the ongoing political instability there
may be bringing India's breakup close. We should support the peaceful
struggle for freedom throughout India.
India destablized South Asia with its nuclear weapons' tests. It was
a close ally of the Soviet Union and supported the invasion of
Afghanistan. I am told that it has the most anti-American voting record
of any country in the United Nations with the exception of Cuba. Why
does a government like that continue to receive aid from the United
States?
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to stop supporting governments that
actively work against us. We should cut off all American aid to India
and declare our support for the freedom movements through democratic
plebiscites. These are important steps to extend the hand of freedom to
the people of South Asia.
____________________
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT FOR THE BRING THEM HOME ALIVE ACT OF 1999
______
HON. JOEL HEFLEY
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Bring
Them Home Alive Act of 1999. This legislation provides a powerful
incentive to persuade foreign nationals to identify and return to the
United States any living American POW/MIA who served in the Vietnam or
Korean War. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 28 bipartisan
co-sponsors.
The on-going war in Yugoslavia has brought the plight of American
POW/MIAs to the forefront of the nation's psyche. We all watched in
horror several weeks ago as three captured American servicemen were
displayed with visible cuts and bruises on Serbian television. We
feared for their lives, their safety and their well-being. It was with
great relief that we watched as Staff Sergeants Christopher Stone and
Andrew Ramirez and Specialist Steven Gonzales were released, relatively
unharmed, from a Serbian prison.
The story of the capture of these three servicemen ended with family
reunions and a safe return home to America. However, too many POW/MIAs
were not so fortunate. There is the possibility that soldiers from the
Vietnam and Korean Wars are still living as prisoners of war. It is our
duty to do all that we can to bring them home.
The Bring Them Home Alive Act would grant asylum in the U.S. to
foreign nationals who help return a living American POW/MIA from either
the Vietnam War or the Korean War. The bill specifically allows
citizens of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, North Korea, or any of the
states of the former Soviet Union who assist in the rescue of an
American POW/MIA to be granted asylum. The legislation would also grant
asylum to the rescuer's family, including their spouse and children,
since their safety would most likely be threatened by such a rescue.
While there is some doubt as to whether any American POW/MIAs from
these two wars remain alive, the official U.S. policy distinctly
recognizes the possibility that American POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War
could still be alive and held captive in Indochina. The official
position of the Defense Department states, ``Although we have thus far
been unable to prove that Americans are still being held against their
will, the information available to us precludes ruling out that
possibility. Actions to investigate live-sighting reports receive and
will continue to receive necessary priority and resources based on the
assumption that at least some Americans are still help captive. Should
any report prove true, we will take appropriate action to ensure the
return of those involved.'' The Bring Them Home Alive Act supports this
official position and provides for the possibility of bringing any
surviving U.S. servicemen home alive.
In order to inform foreign nationals of this offer, the bill calls on
the International Broadcasting Bureau to draw upon its resources, such
as WORLDNET Television and its Internet sites, to broadcast information
that promotes the Bring Them Home Alive asylum program. Similarly, the
bill calls on Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia to broadcast
information.
Mr. Speaker, we are less than two weeks away from celebrating
Memorial Day. This holiday is an opportunity for us, as a nation, to
honor the soldiers and veterans who so valiantly served and protected
our nation and our freedoms. American servicemen and women deserve this
recognition, as well as our respect and appreciation. I believe it
would be a fitting tribute to American soldiers to pass the Bring Them
Home Alive Act. As long as there remains even the remotest possibility
that there may be American survivors, we owe it to our servicemen and
their families to bring them home alive.
____________________
HUNGER'S SILENT VICTIMS
______
HON. TONY P. HALL
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to our
colleagues' attention a humanitarian crisis in Asia, one half a world
away from the glare of television lights and public concern--but one
every bit as worthy of our attentions as the crime scene that is
Kosovo.
I recently visited rural villages in Cambodia, and was surprised to
see that Pol Pot's legacies--serious malnutrition and illiteracy--
persist two decades after he was run from power. I am especially
concerned that our country is focusing too much on political issues,
and ignoring the tremendous humanitarian problems in Cambodia.
One aspect of these problems--hunger and malnutrition so severe that
it is stunting the bodies and brains of more than half of Cambodia's
children--was explained in a superb article recently in Time Magazine's
Asian edition. We all know the tragic of Cambodia; this article
describes a future sure to be needlessly sad.
Cambodia is a fertile land at the crossroads of a thriving regional
economy. Its people are hard-working and innovative. With a little
peace, and a little humanitarian assistance, they can again be the
stable, growing rice exporter they were in the 1960s.
I would respectfully request that Time's article, and my own
statement on the situation, be included in the Congressional Record.
[From Time Asia, May 17, 1999]
Hunger's Silent Victims
(By Nisid Hajari)
Cambodia is accustomed to the thunder of artillery, to
death tolls thickened by war
[[Page 10894]]
and disease. The quiet of peace, however, has begun to allow
more subtle killers a hearing. The latest crisis: food
security, or its shameful absence among the country's
malnourished poor.
The problem is hardly new, only newly appreciated. Earlier
this year a joint survey published by UNICEF and the United
Nations World Food Program (WFP) found that in Cambodia's
poorest rural areas, nearly half the children under age five
are physically stunted, while 20% suffer acute malnutrition.
According to a separate U.N. study published last December,
Cambodia has the highest malnutrition rates in East Asia,
with an average daily intake of only 1,980 calories, even
lower than that of famine-stricken North Korea (2,390
calories) ``Malnutrition in Cambodia is chronic,'' says the
WFP's acting country director, Ken Noah Davies. ``You could
call this a silent emergency, or you could call this a
national crisis.''
The scope of the problem bears out that dire warning.
Although hunger is especially acute in the countryside, even
Cambodia's relatively affluent urban population suffers
disturbingly high rates of malnutrition. The most recent data
released by the Ministry of Health reveal that in 1996,
nearly 34% of children below the age of five in this upper
income group were moderately underweight and 21% severely
stunted. The results suggest that not only income, but also
socio-cultural factors may contribute to the underfeeding of
children. For traditional cultural reasons--breastfeeding
from birth is seen as taboo--Cambodian women are often
reluctant to suckle their newborns immediately, waiting
several days and thereby depriving infants of highly
nutritious colostrum, or first milk.
Much of the difficulty in feeding kids properly stems from
the devastation wrought by the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot's mad
attempt at transforming the country into a vast agrarian
commune destroyed its irrigation system, which had made
Cambodia a net rice exporter in the 1960s.
Since most farmers no longer hold formal title to their
land--eliminated at the time, along with private property--
their fields are vulnerable to takeover by soldiers and local
thugs. And the sundering of countless families has disrupted
the passage of traditional knowledge from mother to daughter.
In some outlying districts, many women have 10 or more
children; some are either unaware of birth control
techniques or unable to afford condoms. ``Nobody comes to
explain to them about health care,'' says Kao Chheng Huor,
head of the WFP office for the provinces of Kampong Thom
and Preah Vihear.
But in Kampong Thom, which according to the joint UNICEF/
WFP survey suffers the highest rates of child malnutrition in
the country, it quickly becomes apparent that the heart of
the problem is mind numbing poverty. ``I had no choice, I had
no other way except to send my children away,'' says Hol Ny,
her eyes wet with tears. The 40-year-old widow, bereft of
land or cattle, recently allowed three of her six children to
go work for other families, some of them total strangers; the
$15 she received per child must feed her and her three
youngest for the next year. In her village of Srayou Cheung,
at least six other families have similarly sold their
children into bonded labor; some say they have had to forage
in the forest for food. Hol Ny's neighbor, a 41-year-old
divorcee named Pich Mom, sold her two sons for two years
each. ``I was sick and couldn't earn any money,'' she says.
``It's hard for me to live without my children, but I think I
did what was best for them.''
For the past four years, Cambodia has actually recorded a
small rice surplus estimated to reach 30,000 tons this year.
This bounty, however, is distributed poorly, and many farmers
simply cannot afford to buy what is available. (In a country
with a per capita income of only $300 a year, about 36% of
Cambodians live below the official poverty line; last year
the WFP assisted 1.4 million people, 15% of the population,
with its food-for-work program.) Even those who have rice
often have little else--perhaps a little salt, or the
fermented fish paste called ``prahoc''--to round out the
dish. That little is not nearly enough: rice, while high in
calories, has relatively few nutrients.
The WFP says Prime Minister Hum Sen was shocked by the U.N.
surveys, and he now insists that eliminating malnutrition is
a top priority. ``Now that the fighting is over, we expect
everyone to work on this issue,'' says Nouv Kanun, the
energetic secretary general of the newly created Council for
Agriculture and Rural Development.
A conference of Cabinet ministers and provincial
authorities last month endorsed a 10-year, $90 million plan
to tackle the root causes of malnutrition, focusing on crop
diversification and awareness campaigns about nutrition,
health and hygiene. Still, the damage that is already evident
will plague Cambodia for years to come. ``If you are
malnourished from six months until you are five, you are
going to be handicapped for the rest of your life,'' warns
Davies. ``You will never be able to develop your full mental
or physical capacity.'' Perhaps now that warning can be
heard.
____
POL POT'S LEGACIES--ILLITERACY AND MALNUTRITION--HAVE NOT YET FOLLOWED
DESPOT TO THE GRAVE
Washington.--U.S. Rep. Tony Hall, D-Ohio, today detailed
his impressions of humanitarian conditions in Cambodia and
warned that problems of desperate poverty--especially severe
malnutrition, scarce schools, and wide swaths of mined land--
are undermining the victory over those responsible for the
death of nearly two million Cambodians. Excerpts of Hall's
remarks follow.
``I visited Cambodia's capital and two rural provinces
April 8-11 to get a firsthand look at the problems of
poverty, and particularly the terrible malnutrition that has
left Cambodia's rural villages populated by stunted people--
and one in 10 wasted by hunger.
``What I saw in Cambodia's rural villages reminded me of
the time I spent in Thailand 32 years ago as a Peace Corps
volunteer. People in Cambodia seem to be frozen in time, and
you cannot escape the nagging feeling that Pol Pot and the
Khmer Rouge have won, that they took the people backward in
time and stranded them there.
``I was surprised to learn that in Cambodia, malnutrition
is not the result of a lack of food. It is caused by the
failure to teach mothers that they don't have to wait three
days after giving birth to breastfeed the baby; that children
should be fed more than just rice; that fish or fruit or
vegetables won't make toddlers sick; and that without basic
sanitation, disease will undo all the good of proper
nutrition and care.
``People need more traditional education too--four in five
rural Cambodians can't read or write, and just 20-30 percent
of children are in school. That means they can't take
advantage of their position at a crossroads of the regional
economy. And education is only the beginning of Cambodia's
problems.
``Without roads, it is impossible for rural people, who are
85% of the population, to get their products to market.
Without irrigation, most can only raise enough food to keep
their families alive. With even a few more roads and water
systems, Cambodia could feed itself and earn enough to fund
some progress.
``Malaria, TB, dengue fever, and the growing rate of AIDS
infections need to be fought more seriously. It is appalling
that Cambodian children still die from measles and other
easily prevented illnesses. Even the most basic things, such
as iodizing salt to prevent mental retardation, are not being
done.
``The country desperately needs economic growth. The
government's plan to demobilize 55,000 soldiers and 23,000
police will put a lot of young men with guns into a society
that is very fragile. Aid cannot create an economy, and I
hope the government will invest the money it now spends on
the military on improving its people's opportunities.
``Cambodia's people need peace--and a period to find their
way forward after 30 years of civil war. It is hard to
imagine the trauma of the generation that endured the
`killing fields,' or their children--who now are raising
children of their own. One aid worker told me that the
pictures children draw almost always feature guns or
weapons--because violence and war are so familiar to them.
``For peace to last, it will take more than the trial of
war criminals. Two decades have passed since the Khmer Rouge
were run out of power, but Cambodians remain among the
poorest people in the world. It is in their lack of education
that you can see that, even though Pol Pot's military is
defeated, he achieved his hideous goal of turning Cambodia
into a primitive place.
``After the mid-1997 coup, the United States cut its
funding for private charities working inside Cambodia--from
$35 million to $12 million. That is unacceptably low, given
the election last year, and it is only hurting poor
Cambodians who already have suffered unimaginably. Whatever
Congress and the Administration think of Cambodia's
government, we need to find a way to help its poor, and I
intend to press the United Nations, the United States, and
other countries to do that.
``The overwhelming majority of Cambodians, whose lifespan
is just 47 years, don't know what peace is. If the areas long
held by the Khmer Rouge aren't opened with roads and other
basic infrastructure, if the people do not have an
opportunity to get some basic education--if ordinary
Cambodians don't see progress in meeting their basic needs,
the peace that is holding now may not last.
``We have an opportunity today that has not existed in
three decades, a chance to introduce Cambodians to the fruits
of peace. The international community should make the most of
this chance by investing in Cambodians and their future--and
the United States should lead the way.''
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF HOME HEALTH ACCESS PRESERVATION ACT
______
HON. VAN HILLEARY
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) made many
changes to
[[Page 10895]]
Medicare and the home health industry. These changes decimated the
system and have left behind them a long list of closed home health
agencies and patients without care. In response, many of us in Congress
desperately sought a solution. Unfortunately, we were unable to come up
with one true vehicle that could pass into law.
This year we come back again. Our efforts will be just as aggressive
but a little wiser. Instead of competing against one another, we in
Congress will now work together to fix the problem. That is why I have
joined with Congressmen McGovern, Coburn, and Weygand to craft
legislation that will help our seniors in need. Joined by Congressmen
Rahall, McIntosh, Hooley, Wamp, Barton, and Ackerman, we plan to push
forward legislation that aims to help the neediest of home health
beneficiaries and agencies.
The first patients that will receive the aid are those that are
considered ``outliers.'' Outliers are patients who have unusually high
cost maladies. Under the BBA system, many agencies are unable to give
them care at the risk of being run out of business because they are so
cost prohibitive. We create a system that sets aside 10 specific
ailments that would make a person eligible to receive this outlier
status. Once they are identified as an outlier, agencies who take these
individuals could draw from a newly established $250,000,000 Medicare
fund to cover the added expenses. This will mean more of our poorest,
oldest, and sickest receiving the medical coverage they so desperately
need.
Another benefit of this legislation will be the establishment of a
repayment plan for agencies who have been treating these individuals.
Many of them are now almost out of business due to their charity and
the inaccuracies of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) in
assessing their plight. We offer an interest-free 36-month grace period
to these agencies in order to repay these overpayments and settle any
miscalculations on behalf of HCFA.
I urge all other Members who see the need for a reform in home health
to back this legislation. The Home Health Access Preservation Act of
1999 is a common sense way to help our seniors in their time of need.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE CRIMINAL WELFARE PREVENTION ACT, PART II AND THE
CRIMINAL WELFARE PREVENTION ACT, PART III
______
HON. WALLY HERGER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today, I join with a bipartisan coalition of
original cosponsors to re-introduce two important pieces of
legislation--The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II and The
Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part III--which will help prevent the
needless waste of taxpayer dollars.
Because of the original Criminal Welfare Prevention Act--legislation
I introduced during the 104th Congress which was enacted as part of
welfare reform in 1996--an effective new incentive system is now in
place that enables the Social Security Administration (SSA) to detect
and cut off fraudulent Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social
Security (OASDI) benefits that would otherwise be issued to prisoners.
That provision established monetary incentives for state and local law
enforcement authorities to enter into voluntary data-sharing contracts
with SSA. Now, participating local authorities can elect to provide the
Social Security numbers of their inmates to the Social Security
Administration. If SSA identifies any ``matches''--instances where
inmates are fraudulently collecting SSI benefits--SSA now cuts off
payment of as much as $400. Participation in these data-sharing
contracts is strictly voluntary; they do not involve any unfunded
federal mandates. According to an estimate by SSA's Inspector General,
this initiative could help save taxpayers as much as $3.46 billion
through the year 2001.
While we should certainly be proud of this achievement Mr. Speaker,
our work in this area is far from finished. During the 105th Congress,
the House passed by follow-up legislation, The Criminal Welfare
Prevention Act, Part II (H.R. 530), as part of The Ticket to Work and
Self-Sufficiency Act (H.R. 3433). This proposal would encourage even
more sheriffs to become involved in fraud-prevention by extending the
$400 incentive payments to intercepted Social Security (OASDI) checks
as well. Regrettably, this proposal was not taken up by the Senate. For
this reason, I am re-introducing The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act,
Part II today, and will continue to push for the enactment of this
important initiative.
At the same time, I will also be working to enact a somewhat broader
proposal. The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part III, which I first
introduced during the 105th Congress as H.R. 4172. This legislation
would simply require SSA to share its prisoner database with other
federal departments and agencies--such as the Departments of
Agriculture, Education, Labor, and Veterans' Affairs--to help prevent
the continued payment of other fraudulent benefits to prisoners. While
we do not have reliable information about how many prisoners are
receiving food stamps, education aid, and VA benefits for which they
are ineligible, it is likely that many do. SSA's prisoner database
provides us with the perfect tool to help identify and terminate
inappropriate benefits issued through other federal and federally-
assisted spending programs.
While SSA already has the authority to share its prisoner database
with other agencies under a provision of the original Criminal Welfare
Prevention Act--and while President Clinton has issued an executive
memorandum ordering the SSA to do so--I believe it is important for
Congress to codify this requirement into law. Because fraud prevention
has not historically been a top priority at SSA, Congress should act
swiftly to ensure that we permanently stamp out inmate fraud in all its
forms. After all, taxpayers already pay for inmates' food, clothing,
and shelter. It is simply outrageous that prisoners may be receiving
fraudulent ``bonus'' checks each month as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues--on both sides of the
aisle--to cosponsor both of these important pieces of legislation. I
hope that Congress will not promptly on these proposals to help remind
inmates that crime isn't supposed to pay.
____________________
THE MAILBOX PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox
Privacy Protection Act, a joint resolution disapproving a Postal
Service Regulation which tramples on the privacy of the two million
Americans who rent mailboxes from Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies.
Under this regulation, any American currently renting, or planning to
rent, a commercial mailbox will have to provide the receiving agency
with personal information, including two items of valid identification,
one of which must contain a photograph of the applicant and one of
which must contain a ``serial number--traceable to the bearer.'' Of
course, in most cases that number will be today's de facto national ID
number--the Social Security number.
The receiving agency must then send the information to the Post
Office, which will maintain the information in a database. Furthermore,
the Post Office authorizes the Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies to
collect and maintain photocopies of the forms of identification
presented by the box renter. My colleagues might be interested to know
that the Post Office is prohibited from doing this by the Privacy Act
of 1974. I hope my colleagues are as outraged as I am by the Post
Office's mandating that their competitors do what Congress has
forbidden the Post Office to do directly.
Thanks to the Post Office's Federal Government-granted monopoly on
first-class delivery service, Americans cannot receive mail without
dealing with the Postal Service. Therefore, this regulation presents
Americans who wish to receive mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving
Agency with a choice: either provide the federal government with your
name, address, photograph and social security number, or surrender the
right to receive communications from one's fellow citizens in one's
preferred manner.
This regulation, ironically, was issued at the same time the Post
Office was issuing a stamp honoring Ayn Rand, one of the twentieth
century's greatest champions of liberty. Another irony connected to
this regulation is that it comes at a time when the Post Office is
getting into an ever increasing number of enterprises not directly
related to mail delivery. So, while the Postal Service uses its
monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it
works to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of
mail delivery.
This regulation also provides the Post Office with a list of all
those consumers who have opted out of the Post Office's mailbox
service. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the
chance to get a list of their competitor's customer names, addresses,
social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even
mail advertisements to
[[Page 10896]]
those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not
be invaded if they used a government box.
Coincidentally, this regulation will also raise the operating cost on
the Post Office's private competitors for private mailbox services.
Some who have examined this bill estimate that it could impose costs as
high as $1 billion on these small businesses during the initial six-
month compliance period. The long-term costs of this rule are
incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in
the first few years. This may force some of these businesses into
bankruptcy.
During the rule's comment period, more than 8,000 people formally
denounced the rule, while only 10 spoke generally favor of it. However,
those supporting this rule will claim that the privacy of the majority
of law-abiding citizens who use commercial mailboxes must be sacrificed
in order to crack down on those using commercial mailboxes for criminal
activities. However, I would once again remind my colleagues that the
Federal role in crime, even if the crime is committed in ``interstate
commerce,'' is a limited one. The fact that some people may use a
mailbox to commit a crime does not give the Federal Government the
right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal.
Moreover, my office has received a significant number of calls from
battered women who use these boxes to maintain their geographic
privacy.
I have introduced this joint resolution in hopes that it will be
considered under the expedited procedures established in the Contract
with America Advancement Act of 1996. This procedure allows Congress to
overturn onerous regulations such as the subject of this bill. Mr.
Speaker, the entire point of this procedure to provide Congress with a
means to stop federal actions which pose an immediate threat to the
rights of Americans. Thanks to these agency review provisions, Congress
cannot hide and blame these actions on the bureaucracy. I challenge my
colleagues to take full advantage of this process and use it to stop
this outrageous rule.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in
cosponsoring the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which uses the Agency
Review Procedures of the Contract with America Advancement Act to
overturn Post Office's regulations requiring customers of private
mailboxes to give the Post Office their name, address, photographs and
social security number. The Federal Government should not force any
American citizen to divulge personal information as the price for
receiving mail. I further call on all my colleagues to assist me in
moving this bill under the expedited procure established under the
Congressional Review Act.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CITY OF LEBANON ON ITS SESQUICENTENNIAL BIRTHDAY
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to
congratulate the City of Lebanon and Laclede County on its
Sesquicentennial birthday.
Through the 1830's and 1840's pioneers chiefly from North Carolina,
Tennessee, and Kentucky filtered in to fertile little valleys along
streams and creeks in an Laclede County, Missouri. These settlers were
farmers with only the bare necessities, and few tools, who relied upon
their energy, efficiency and resourcefulness to overcome deficiencies.
In 1849 Laclede County was organized out of three neighboring
counties, Pulaski, Wright, and Camden. A donation of 50 acres of land
by Berry Harrison and James Appling established the county seat on what
is now Old Town hill. A courthouse, jail, general store, and various
office buildings were eventually added to this beautiful setting.
The county changed with the arrival of the Frisco railroad. The
railroad was established three quarters of a mile out on the muddy
prairie, which caused the railroad to be located a quarter of a mile
outside of the town. Businesses eventually moved toward the railroad
and in a couple of years a new business center grew up and Old Town
became simply the first ward of new Lebanon. Small towns grew up and
along the railroad each taking its quota of trade that the first years
had given to Lebanon.
After 150 years Laclede County can boast of prosperous farms, schools
within the reach of every child, churches for every community, and
prosperity over the entire county.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the residents of
the city of Lebanon and Laclede County. It is with great pride that I
honor their achievements on their Sesquicentennial birthday.
____________________
CRISIS IN KOSOVO (ITEM NO. 5), REMARKS BY DAVID SWARTZ, FORMER
AMBASSADOR TO BELARUS
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 1999, I joined with
Representative John Conyers, Representative Pete Stark, and
Representative Cynthia McKinney to host the third in a series of
Congressional Teach-In sessions on the Crisis in Kosovo. If a peaceful
resolution to this conflict is to be found in the coming weeks, it is
essential that we cultivate a consciousness of peace and actively
search for creative solutions. We must construct a foundation for peace
through negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy.
Part of the dynamic of peace is a willingness to engage in meaningful
dialogue, to listen to one another openly and to share our views in a
constructive manner. I hope that these Teach-In sessions will
contribute to this process by providing a forum for Members of Congress
and the public to explore alternatives to the bombing and options for a
peaceful resolution. We will hear from a variety of speakers of
different sides of the Kosovo situation. I will be introducing into the
Congressional Record transcripts of their remarks and essays that shed
light on the many dimensions of the crisis.
This presentation is by David Swartz, former Ambassador to Belarus.
He is a retired foreign service officer and Director of the
International Institute of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate
School. His other foreign-service posts included Rotterdam, London,
Moscow, Kiev, Zurich, Calgary and Warsaw. He is the author of
``Redirecting the CIA: Keep Agency Out of Policymaking, Make Ambassador
Boss Overseas'' (Foreign Service Journal, February 1996).
Ambassador Swartz explains how United States policy in Bosnia
contributed to NATO's current dilemma in Kosovo. He also states a clear
position on a central question: Does the United States have an
overriding national interest in the resolution of strife in the
Balkans? Ambassador Swartz's comments may be controversial to some, but
they represent a valuable contribution to our ongoing
debate.***HD***Presentation by David Swartz to Congressional Teach-In
On Kosovo
I think my role today is going to be controversial. And if ever there
was a conflict that was controversial this one certainly is. So I'm
pleased to be here. Some of what I'm going to say is going to offend
some people and possibly some of it will offend everybody, I don't
know. But at least is may serve as a catalyst to help get the
discussion going as we move along. But I am being deliberately
provocative in some places so I warn you in advance and ask your
indulgence.
I do wish to express my thanks for the opportunity to present may
statement this afternoon on U.S.-Kosovo policy. My statement, while
critical, is non-partisan. It reflects the general reality , in my view
at least, that U.S. polices in the Balkans over the past eight years
have reflected bipartisanship, just as criticisms of Administration
policy, particularly with regard to the Yugoslavia war, have also
tended to be bipartisan.
The two key desiderata driving my views on U.S. actions in that
region and in the Kosovo region are these: First, human suffering must
be minimized. And that's way ahead of any other. But the second one is:
clear U.S. national interests justifying involvement must be present.
Our policies in my view reflect deficiencies on both counts. I will
very briefly touch on three aspects of that problem. One, how we got to
where we are. Two, why current policy is wrong. And three, what next.
Three is perhaps being developed as well speak.
First, how we got where we are. American involvement in the post-
communist Balkan turmoil stems in large part in my view from a
questionable policy of premature diplomatic recognition of groups
asserting sovereignty, particularly Bosnia, in the early 1990's. Some
groupings in the then-Yugoslavia could genuinely be considered ripe for
independence, most especially Croatia, and Slovenia, possibly to a
lesser extent Macedonia. Bosnia, however, could by no reasonable
standard be considered a nation-state.
What is Bosnia? Who are Bosnians? What is their history, language,
literature, religion? What can we point to that is uniquely Bosnian? It
seems to me that creation of a multi-ethnic state is complicated under
the best of
[[Page 10897]]
circumstances, and Bosnia in the early 90's was not the best of
circumstances. At a minimum, a la Switzerland, the disparate groups
must have a common desire to join together in some higher level of
governance than just the individual groupings they find themselves in.
So in Bosnia a so-called country was cobbled together and we know the
result: ethnic cleansing, massacres, artificiality imposed at Dayton,
and peace maintained solely through the possibly permanent presence of
armed forces of external powers. Far from fostering stability in the
former Yugoslavia, I would argue that the Bosnia so-called settlement
has served to institutionalize instability. If U.S. involvement in
Bosnia was the proximate cause of our current troubles, highly
superficial understanding by our policy makers of the centuries of
passions, hatreds, vendettas, indeed genocide throughout the Balkans
was a more deep-seeded problem. If we knew nothing else, we should have
known that there are no good guys in the region, and that therefore
aligning ourselves in one or another direction was fraught with danger.
This truism applies equally to our current dilemma in Kosovo. With
specific regard to Mr. Milosevic in Kosovo, the United States'
misreading of his intentions is nothing short of shocking. If
intelligence and diplomatic analysis are good for anything at all, they
must serve the critical function of providing policy makers with
accurate prognoses of the intentions of adversaries. We can forgive
White House ignorance about Milosevic's likely response to a forced
dictate over Kosovo, and perhaps even that of our Secretary of State.
However, certainly at a minimum, emissary Richard Holbrooke and his
well-meaning but judgment-impaired staff, with the hundreds of hours
they spent in direct contact with Milosevic, should have been able to
discern his intentions, once it became clear to him that the United
States' intentions were to carve away his authority in Kosovo. At that
point, the nonsensical idea that Milosevic would cave under the threat
of bombing should have been discarded once and for all. Tragically, it
wasn't.
My second point: Why our policy is wrong. And this brings me back to
my two basic desiderata: Minimizing human suffering, and advancing
clearly identified U.S. interests. A powerful argument has been made in
some circles, an argument that I find somewhat persuasive, perhaps not
completely, that the least human suffering in the former Yugoslavia
would have resulted from the outside world not involving itself at all
in the internal civil strife. Yes, there would have been oppression,
yes there would have been killing, but in the end, the argument goes, a
level of coexistence would eventually have been reached, no doubt for
the moment at least with Serbia in full charge, in which life would
have gone on for the masses. Not freedom, perhaps, not automony,
certainly, but at least basic life. With outside support first for
Bosnian independence, a wholly unsustainable proposition over the long
run, and then for an imposed Kosovo settlement, even more implausible,
great violence resulted, and continues.
What are U.S. interests? I am not persuaded that we have any
overriding interests in the Balkan strife and certainly none that would
justify the course of action on which we are embarked. The NATO
credibility argument is not persuasive. Had the alliance led by the
U.S. not constantly threatened Milosevic with military action if he did
not submit himself to NATO's demands, we would not have found ourselves
in the put-up-or-shut-up corner. Expansion of the conflict to say,
Turkey or Greece, or Turkey and Greece, is equally implausible. Clearly
the conflicts are limits to the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and
Milosevic' desire to reassert his and Serbia's domination. Support for
human rights is indeed a laudable national interest, but as suggested
above, our intervention in the region has had the opposite of the
desired effect.
Where we do have strong national interests are vis a vis Russia, and
there the Kosovo is quite possibly going to result in, if not
permanent, at least long-lasting damage to reformist elements in
Russian politics on whom we count for achieving societal
transformations there. Or alternatively, as now seems quite likely, if
Russian involvement in the settlement takes place, that might well lead
to a diluted result bearing little resemblance to our stated conditions
when we began this war. Or both of those might happen.
My third point: What next? Having embarked on what in my judgment is
a foolish and ill-considered air war, it seems to me that the U.S. now
has only two options: Stop the bombing, cutting whatever deal the
Russians can broker for us, that now seems to be underway, perhaps, or
immediately and massively escalate, with the specific twin goals of
removing Milosevic and eliminating all Serbian fighting units in
Kosovo. The first option is the one I prefer, because as I said at the
outset I believe minimizing human suffering must be the goal. Each day
of bombing is accompanied by more ethnic cleansing, raping and summary
executions of Kosovars. It of course also leads to casualties among
Serbia's civilian population. Forty-plus days of bombing have seemingly
not stopped Milosevic's evil in Kosovo one whit, indeed, have
accelerated it. The cessation of bombing is of course fraught with
danger, since it will mean an outcome, no doubt far short of our stated
objectives when we began this war, it will mean a resurgent Russia on
the world scene, which might not be a bad thing, but that Russia could
well be far different from the one we had hoped for, and now a truly
credibility-deficient NATO. But we should have thought of those matters
earlier, and in the meantime, each day brings more casualties.
I for one have reached my tolerance level of the daily dosage of
atrocity stories juxtaposed with confident NATO spokespersons detailing
the quote-unquote in the air war the previous night's 600 sorties have
resulted in, where clearly the latter has not diminished the former.
The other option is massive force now. I do not advocate this course,
but it seems to me the only other viable option. Paratroopers dropped
in throughout Kosovo, going after Milosevic himself on the grounds of
his long-overdue designation as a wanted war criminal. The other NATO
partners will balk, and the U.S. should be ready to act alone, wasting
no more time. Yes, this approach will result in still more deaths, and
other atrocities among the suffering Kosovars, but at least the end of
the agony will be sooner than with our present incomprehensible
approach.
In sum, the U.S. should not be engaged in this war in the first
place, but since it is, we must either win it quickly, or get our
quickly. Otherwise the lives of many, many more innocent people will be
on our American conscience.
____________________
PREVENTING ABUSE OF THE HOSPITAL PAYMENT SYSTEM: INTRODUCTION OF
MEDICARE MODERNIZATION NO. 5
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress
provided that for 10 hospital diagnosis related groups (DRG's), we
would not pay the full DRG if the patient was discharged to further
treatment in a nursing home, home health agency, or to a rehab or long-
term-care hospital. I include at the end of my statement the conference
report language describing this provision. Note that as originally
passed by the House and Senate, it applied to all hospital discharges--
not just 10 DRG's.
The administration and the Congress were worried that some hospitals
have been gaming the Medicare hospital prospective payment system. They
have been discharging patients early to downstream treatment facilities
(which they often own), collecting the full DRG payment, and requiring
Medicare to pay for longer and more expensive treatments in these
downstream facilities.
Many of the nation's hospitals are lobbying for the repeal of this
discharge provision--even though repeal would cost Medicare billions of
dollars in the years to come. The intensity of the lobbying on this
issues shows that early discharge to subsidiaries has become a major
strategy of many hospitals. It may have been part of the Columbia/HCA
scheme to maximize Medicare revenues.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should return to our earlier decision and
apply the policy to all discharges, not just 10 DRG's.
The HHS inspector general has found that hospitals that own nursing
homes discharge patients much earlier than average, and the patient
then stays in the nursing home longer than average--an extra 8 days
(OEI-02-94-00320). The OIG has also found that patients' stays are
shorter when they are discharged to a home health agency. With about
half the nation's hospitals owning a home health agency, this is
another way to double dip.
The bill I am introducing will save Medicare billions of additional
dollars in the years to come, and it will remove a temptation to abuse
patients by pushing them out of hospitals too soon.
I hope that this legislation--one of a series of bills I am
introducing to modernize Medicare and make it more efficient--will be
enacted as part of our efforts to save Medicare for the Baby Boom
generation.
[[Page 10898]]
Certain Discharge To Post Acute Care
Section 10507 of the House bill and Section 5465 of the Senate
amendment
current law
PPS hospitals that move patients to PPS-exempt hospitals
and distinct-part hospital units, or skilled nursing
facilities are currently considered to have ``discharged''
the patient and receive a full DRG payment. Under current
law, a ``transfer'' is defined as moving a patient from one
PPS hospital to another PPS hospital. In a transfer case,
payment to the first PPS hospital is made on a per diem
basis, and the second PPS hospital is paid the full DRG
payment.
house bill
Defines a ``transfer case'' to include an individual
discharged from a PPS hospital who is: (1) admitted as an
inpatient to a hospital or distinct-part hospital unit that
is not a PPS hospital for further inpatient hospital
services; (2) is admitted to a skilled nursing facility or
other extended care facility for extended care services; or
(3) receives home health service from a home health agency if
such services directly relate to the condition or diagnosis
for which the individual received inpatient hospital
services, and if such services were provided within an
appropriate period, as determined by the Secretary in
regulations promulgated no later than September 1, 1998.
Under the provision, a PPS hospital that ``transferred'' a
patient would be paid on a per diem basis up to the full DRG
payment. The PPS-exempt hospital or other facility would be
paid under its own Medicare payment policy.
Effective Date. With respect to transfer from PPS-exempt
hospitals and SNFs, applies to discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 1997. For home health care, applies to
discharges occurring on or after October 1, 1998.
senate amendment
Similar provision, except defines a transfer case as
including the case of an individual who, immediately upon
discharge from and pursuant to the discharge planning process
of a PPS hospital, is admitted to a PPS-exempt hospital,
hospital unit, SNF, or other extended care facility. The
provision does not include home health services in the
definition of a transfer.
conference agreement
The conference agreement would provide that for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 1998, those that fall within
a specified group of 10 DRGs would be treated as a transfer
for payment purposes. The Secretary would be given the
authority to select the 10 DRGs focusing on those with high
volume and high post acute care. The provision would apply to
patients transferred from a PPS hospital to a PPS-exempt
hospital or unit, SNF, discharges with subsequent home health
care provided within an appropriate period (as defined by the
Secretary), and for discharges occurring on or after October
1, 2000, the Secretary may propose to include additional post
discharge settings and DRGs to the transfer policy.
Payments to PPS hospitals would be fully or partially based
on Medicare's current payment policies applicable to patients
transferred from one PPS hospital to another PPS hospital
(per diem rates). The Secretary would determine whether the
full transfer policy or a blended payment rate (50% of the
transfer per diem payment and 50% of the total DRG payment)
would apply based on the distribution of marginal costs
across days, so that if a substantial portion of the costs of
a case are incurred in the early days of a hospital stay the
payment would reflect these costs. For FY 2001, the Secretary
would be required to publish a proposed rule which included a
description of the effect of the transfer policy. The
Secretary would be authorized to include in the proposed rule
and final rule for FY 2001 or a subsequent fiscal year, a
description of additional post-discharge services that would
result in a qualified discharge and diagnosis-related groups
specified by the Secretary in addition to the 10 diagnosis-
related groups originally selected under this policy.
The Conferees are concerned that Medicare may in some cases
be overpaying hospitals for patients who are transferred to a
post acute care setting after a very short acute care
hospital stay. The Conferees believe that Medicare's payment
system should continue to provide hospitals with strong
incentives to treat patients in the most effective and
efficient manner, while at the same time, adjust PPS payments
in a manner that accounts for reduced hospital lengths of
stay because of a discharge to another setting.
The Conferees expect that the application of the Transfer
policy to 10 high volume/high post-acute use DRGs will
provide extensive data to examine hospital behavioral effects
under the new transfer policy
____________________
THE CRA SUNSHINE ACT OF 1999
______
HON. BILL McCOLLUM
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the CRA Sunshine
Act of 1999. This is a modest effort to reform the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) and bring more openness to it.
CRA groups have reported over $9 billion in cash payments received or
pledged by banks as a result of CRA activities. A total of $694 billion
in CRA commitments have been made or pledged due to CRA. While these
pledges are made and collected as a direct result of federal
legislation, the details of these payments are often unknown because
many agreements include confidentiality clauses. Congress never
intended that CRA dollars be used for anything other than investing in
low and moderate income areas. There is concern that some CRA dollars
are being used by CRA activists to pay for consulting fees, hiring
contracts, administrative fees, and other nonloan activities. By
shining light on the details of agreements made pursuant to CRA, this
Act would remove the mystery from deals between banks and CRA
organizations while ensuring that CRA truly benefits those that it was
designed to benefit.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE BANKING PRIVACY ACT
______
HON. JAY INSLEE
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with many of my colleagues, to
introduce the Banking Privacy Act. We recognize the threat to consumer
privacy and want to return control over an individual's personal
financial information back to the consumer.
My constituents are shocked when I tell them that their banking
transaction experiences are not private. With certain exceptions,
financial institutions may legally share all of the information about
you and your bank account activity with affiliated businesses--or
anyone else, for that matter. This shared information includes the
amount of each check that you write, to whom each check is written, the
date of each check, the amount and date of any deposits into your
account, and any ``outside information'' available, such as information
submitted on your initial application for an account. Under existing
law, financial institutions are not obligated to honor your request to
restrict the dissemination of this personal information.
I became interested in banking privacy laws after reading a letter
from a constituent who was upset about his bank's plans to share his
private financial records. I was shocked to learn of the stunning
absence of statuary protections of consumer privacy. Suppose banks,
insurance companies, and securities firms become affiliated, something
that will occur more frequently in the future. Will a bank tip off
affiliated stock brokers every time their consumers have a sudden
increase in their bank account balance, causing the consumer to be
subjected to even more telemarketing calls? Will banks ``profile''
their customers after reviewing their financial information, then have
affiliates telemarket products to those customers? Will life insurance
companies affiliated with banks review personal checking records for
indications of risky behavior, then increase rates based on that
information? Under current law, there is nothing to prevent these types
of situations.
As Congress moves to modernize the financial services industry and
allow the lines between banks, securities firms, and insurance
companies to blur, financial institutions gain a new profit incentive
by sharing customers' personal financial information. Customers who
prefer to keep their financial information private have no recourse.
The Banking Privacy Act is a first step to return control over an
individual's personal financial information back to that consumers. The
Act applies to federally insured depository institutions, their
affiliates and financial institutions covered under the Bank Holding
Company Act.
Currently, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, banks must disclose
to their customers their privacy policies to customers and make
allowances to opt-out of certain types of information sharing
practices. Specifically excluded from this law is customer
``transaction and experience'' information.
Transaction and experience information is information about a
checking or savings account, information contained on an account
application, or even purchasing patterns deduced through a customer's
checking account--``account profiling.'' Transaction and experience
information may be shared with affiliated companies or even sold to
third parties for marketing purposes. There is no law to prevent such
activity from taking place.
[[Page 10899]]
The information is currently used to market financial services to
customers based on their financial patterns. Banks routinely perform
this type of information sharing. However, as we move to modernize the
financial industry, there will be greater demand for this type of
personal account information to market products and services to a
targeted group of consumers.
For example, it is not impossible to imagine that a bank holding
company learned that a customer received a life insurance settlement
and then made that information available to a securities firm or data
broker to market services to that customer. While many consumers will
appreciate the benefit of this information sharing, the decision to
share the information belongs in the hands of the consumer and not the
financial institution.
Customers should be able to opt-out of information sharing policies
in their banks and financial institutions. The Banking Privacy Act will
require banks and financial institutions to disclose their privacy
policies and allow consumers to opt-out of information sharing plans--
including transaction and experience information.
The Banking Privacy Act will not affect the routine operations of a
bank. There are specific exemptions in the bill relating to the day to
day practices that banks have in place which do not impact consumer
privacy. The bill will protect consumers from unwanted marketing based
on their intimate financial details and give consumers control over the
use and sharing of their financial information.
Federally insured depository institutions have an obligation to help
take a stand for consumer privacy. The government provides a safety net
for the banks in the form of insurance and safety provisions. These
same banks have to provide a safety net for taxpayer privacy.
Financial privacy should not be sacrificed at the altar of financial
industry modernization. Americans have the right to freedom of speech
and freedom of religion, and we ought to have the right to freedom from
prying eyes into our personal financial business. Financial
institutions should not be allowed to share private financial
information without customer consent. The Banking Privacy Act is a
necessary and practical response to the erosion of financial privacy
and the potential explosion in cross-marketing among affiliated
financial institutions.
I want to also thank and commend my colleagues for joining me as
cosponsors of the Banking Privacy Act. Representatives Michael Capuano,
Bob Filner, Maurice Hinchey, Joseph Hoeffel, Paul Kanjorski, Barbara
Lee, Jim McDermott, Lynn Rivers, Bernie Sanders, Jan Schakowsky and
Pete Stark have all cosponsored this bill and I appreciate their
assistance.
I urge my colleagues to support and pass the Banking Privacy Act.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF PAUL N. DOLL
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the
House of the death of Paul N. Doll of Jefferson City, Missouri.
Paul Doll was born on April 4, 1911, in Hamilton, Missouri, a son of
Ernest E. and Emma Louise Colby Doll. He was a 1928 graduate of
Hamilton High School and a 1932 graduate of Kidder Junior College. He
received a bachelor's degree in 1936 and a master's degree in 1937 in
agricultural engineering from their University of Missouri-Columbia. In
1984, he received an honorary doctorate from the University of
Missouri.
Doll's career in public service and agriculture began immediately
after his graduation in 1937. He was a county extension agent with the
University of Missouri Extension Service for several counties from 1937
to 1944. A resident of the Jefferson City area since 1944, he was
employed with the Missouri Department of Resources and Development from
1944 to 1947. He was manager of the Missouri Limestone Producers
Association from 1947 to 1954. From 1954 until his retirement in 1976,
he was executive director of the Missouri Society of Professional
Engineers.
Paul Doll was also active in the community. He was an elder of the
First Presbyterian Church, treasurer of the Presbyterian Synod and
president of the Men of the Presbyterian Synod. He was past president
of the Jefferson City Rotary Club and a district governor of Rotary
International. He was a member of Alpha Gamma Rho and Tau Beta Pi
fraternities. Active in many University of Missouri organizations, Paul
Doll was a board member and past officer of the Agricultural
Engineering Council and a board member of the Engineering Advisory
Council and the Alumni Alliance. A member of the Alumni association, he
received its Distinguished Service Award in 1979. He also was a
registered lobbyist for MU.
Mr. Doll was an Eagle Scout and merit badge counselor for the Boy
Scouts of America; board member and committee chairman of the Jefferson
City Engineers Club; board member of the Central Missouri United Way;
volunteer for Meals on Wheels; chairman of the Greater Jefferson City
Committee; and a registered engineer in Missouri.
Paul Doll is survived by his wife, Mary R. ``Meg'' Doll; his son,
Robert; two daughters, Mary Beth Huser and Anne C. Comfort; and eight
grandchildren. I know that this body joins me in expressing sympathy to
the family of this great Missourian.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF MR. OSCAR CROSS OF PADUCAH, KENTUCKY
______
HON. ED WHITFIELD
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to the life and
legacy of Mr. Oscar Cross of Paducah, Kentucky, whose passing on April
20, 1999 at the age of 92 ended his long and productive investment in
great causes, high ideals and humanitarian service.
Mr. Cross was not a man of material wealth. Undeterred, he built a
legacy of leadership built on the wisdom of one of his favorite adages:
``If you don't have money, you have time.'' He gave unstintingly of his
time, his energy and his vision of a better community in which none
were left behind.
Mr. Cross was a founder of the Paducah Boys & Girls Club that now
bears his name. He was a tireless advocate of young people and helped
provide a sheltering hand for generations of boys and girls who found
protection, love, guidance and inspiration as the result of his
efforts.
In a front-page account of his funeral service, The Paducah Sun
observed, ``On the day that had been declared Oscar Cross Day by the
city of Paducah to commemorate his legacy, hundreds of mourners turned
out to pay their last respects to one of the city's greatest
humanitarians. Nearly 500 people gathered at First Baptist Church
Sunday afternoon for the funeral of the legendary humanitarian. Both
blacks and whites filled the church to celebrate, not mourn the life
and contributions Cross made.''
Dhomynic Lightfoot, president of the Boys and Girls Club, was quoted
as saying, ``Having people of different colors, cultures and
backgrounds here to celebrate (his life) is a contribution to Mr.
Cross. The perceptions that he broke were astronomical.''
In a fitting eulogy, Reverend Raynaldo Henderson, pastor of the
Washington Street Missionary Baptist Church, used a parable to
illustrate Mr. Cross's faith in young people and in God. ``Whoever gets
the Son, gets it All! Do you want peace? Get the Son! Do you want joy?
Get the Son! Whoever gets the Son, gets it all!'' he said.
Mr. Speaker, in further tribute to his remarkable life, I place
before the House of Representatives and the Nation for inclusion in the
Congressional Record a poem favored by Mr. Cross and a letter written
to me by Mr. Clarence E. Nunn, Sr., executive director of the Boys and
Girls Club.
____
THE HOUSE BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD
``He was a friend to man, and lived in a house by the side of the
road.''
Homer
There are hermit souls that live withdrawn, In the peace of
their self-content;
There are souls, like stars, that dwell apart, In a
fellowless firmament;
There are pioneer souls that blaze their paths, Where
highways never ran;
But let me live by the side of the road. And be a friend to
man.
Let me live in a house by the side of the road, Where the
race of men go by--
The men who are good and the men who are bad, As good and as
bad as I.
I would not sit in the scorner's seat, Or hurl the cynic's
ban;
Let me live in a house by the side of the road, And be a
friend to man.
I see from my house by the side of the road, By the side of
the highway of life,
The men who press with the ardor of hope, The men who are
faint with the strife.
[[Page 10900]]
But I turn not away from their smiles nor their tears--Both
parts of an infinite plan;
Let me live in my house by the side of the road, And be a
friend to man.
I know there are brook-gladdened meadows ahead, And mountains
of wearisome height,
That the road passes on through the long afternoon, And
stretches away to the night.
But still I rejoice when the travelers rejoice, And week with
the strangers that moan,
Nor live in my house by the side of the road, Like a man who
dwells alone.
Let me live in my house by the side of the road, Where the
race of men go by--
They are good, they are bad, they are weak, they are strong,
Wise, foolish--so am I.
Then why should I sit in the scorner's seat, Or hurl the
cynic's ban?--
Let me live in my house by the side of the road, And be a
friend to man.
Sam Walter Foss.
____
Oscar Cross Boys &
Girls Club of Paducah,
Paducah, KY, May 17, 1999
Dear Congressman Whitfield, I am enclosing a brief history
of Oscar Cross, the founder of the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls
Club of Paducah, who was killed in an automobile accident on
Tuesday, April 20, 1999. The Paducah community and untold
numbers of men and women across the nation owe a huge debt to
Mr. Cross for the countless acts of unconditional love and
service to mankind he performed while living.
For several years, Mr. Cross worked as a janitor at the
courthouse in Paducah, and the courthouse became the initial
meeting place for the newly organized Jr. Legion Boys Club
formed by Mr. Cross and a few local young men in 1950. In
1953, the organization united with the Boys Clubs of America.
It was the first African-American club and is the second
oldest Boys & Girls Club in Kentucky. The dream of operating
a safe, drug-free environment for kids became a reality for
Mr. Cross after many days and nights of soul-searching,
praying and rising above the obstacles of segregation and
separatist attitudes.
When he was refused access to a larger building and better
facilities for his ``boys'' he sought other creative ways to
obtain his goals. He and several club members cleaned and
sold used bricks in order to secure the necessary funds to
purchase the current club location on Jackson Street. Each
time a door was slammed in his face, he invented ``windows''
of opportunity until he was able to achieve his mission. His
tenacity and perseverance enabled him to see his vision of a
facility for the youth of Paducah become a reality and in
1987, the library named in honor of Delbert Shumpert, a
talented athlete and former club member, was erected on the
site of the current boys & girls address.
Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Cross received innumerable
awards, certificates and letters of recognition, far too many
to list in this letter. However, a few of his recognized
achievements include: The Bronze Keystone Award from the Boys
& Girls Club of America for 25 years of service (the first
black to receive this award), Kentucky Colonel Award, a Duke
of Paducah Award, certificate of merit from the Paducah Area
Chamber of Commerce, certificate of appreciation from the 4-H
Club of Paducah Community College, the Lucy Hart Smith-Atwood
S. Wilson Award from the Human Relations Committee of the
Kentucky Education Association and many, many others. His
most recent honor came three days before his death from Kappa
Alpha Psi, a community service fraternity, for his
humanitarian efforts.
His legacy of ``never give up in the face of adversity'' is
something that will be treasured and remembered by all who
had the privilege of knowing him for the brief 92 years he
spent with us. Until his death he continued to be an active
vital member of the club, continuing to look for financial
opportunities and ways to develop our young people so that
they would realize there are alternatives to the streets. He
was and is a remarkable man and an excellent role model.
Sincerely,
Clarence L. Nunn, Sr.,
Executive Director.
____________________
CALLING FOR MILOSEVIC TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my friend
and colleague, Representative Bill Pascrell and 14 other cosponsors in
introducing a resolution which declares the conviction of this Congress
that Slobodan Milosevic is responsible for war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and genocide in the former Yugoslavia. His actions in that
region cannot be excused by anything which Serbia's neighbors or the
international community has done. His victims demand justice.
Unfortunately, the United States Government may not be doing all that
it can to provide evidence to the International Criminal Tribunal in
The Hague to have Milosevic publicly indicted.
In the 105th Congress, there was near unanimous support for H. Con.
Res. 304 and its Senate companion, S. Con. Res. 105. But in the past
year little has been done to advance the just cause of ascribing blame
to this man. Instead, we have had to watch as more atrocities have been
committed in Kosovo, but no evident attempts to hold Milosevic
personally and fully responsible for his actions. This is the reason
that this resolution, which updates those passed last Congress, must
again be considered by this body.
During the Bosnian phase of the Yugoslav conflict, from 1992 to 1995,
Slobodan Milosevic was able to incite extreme nationalist feelings
among Serbs, and he used that as basis to commit acts of genocide
against non-Serb civilians. From early 1998 to the present, the same
thing has been happening in Kosovo. As the resolution points out, about
4 million people have been displaced during the Yugoslav conflicts,
including 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians, most of the latter since late
March. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, some by mass executions
and others by reckless shelling of towns and villages. Tens of
thousands have been raped and tortured, often in detention centers and
concentration camps. Vestiges of a people's daily lives, from their
mosques to their local registration papers, are destroyed. Read the
definition of genocide from the Genocide Convention itself, and read
what happened in Bosnia and what is happening today in Kosovo.
Clearly, this is genocide.
The Helsinki Commission, which I Chair, has heard testimony from many
witnesses--including lawyers, doctors, humanitarian relief aid workers,
and diplomats who have had extensive firsthand experience in the
region--and they have testified to this fact. As a result, in addition
to last year's resolution, I recently wrote to President Clinton urging
that prosecution of war criminals not be placed on the negotiating
table as a bargaining chip to be thrown away, and urging that the U.S.
Government use the resources at its disposal to help the Tribunal issue
an indictment of Milosevic. Just two weeks ago, the Commission held a
hearing on a variety of legal actions stemming from the genocide in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.
Many of us in this body have witnessed firsthand stories from ethnic
Albanians who escaped their homeland into Macedonia and Albania. These
traumatized people now sit in refugee camps, their entire lives left
behind, with an uncertain future.
Mr. Speaker, all those involved in war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide in the former Yugoslavia must be held accountable
for their roles. The evidence is overwhelming. As the head of his
country, Milosevic must be among them. We must ask ourselves why he has
done nothing other than give medals to those who have engaged in
terrible crimes in Kosovo if he himself is not responsible for those
crimes. He is at minimum responsible as Head of State for stopping
these crimes from occurring. He is at least responsible for giving
soldier the license to get away with raping, killing and cleansing the
people of Kosovo. And he is likely responsible for directing his
security forces and paramilitary associates to commit such acts.
Mr. Speaker, with this resolution we are putting the House on record
as saying: The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo was no
accident but part of Belgrade's policy. There can be no true peace in
the Balkans that excludes justice. It is in U.S. national interest to
assist those who can provide justice, and that our government must
therefore do more to help the Tribunal develop a case against Slobodan
Milosevic.
As Mark Ellis of the American Bar Association's Coalition for
International Justice, who provided testimony at one of our hearings on
Kosovo, recently stated, ``Inevitably, lasting peace will be linked to
justice, and justice will depend on accountability. Failing to indict
Milosevic in the hope that he can deliver a negotiated settlement makes
a mockery of the words `Never Again.' '' Let's affirm that we really do
mean ``Never Again'' by again passing a resolution which states our
belief that Milosevic is responsible for war crimes, crimes against
humanity and, yes, genocide.
For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I want to submit an article by Mark
Ellis from the May 9, 1999, Washington Post and the letter I sent to
President Clinton which further illustrate the culpability of Slobodan
Milosevic.
[[Page 10901]]
Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe
Washington, DC, March 31, 1999.
Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: I request that you direct all federal
agencies that may hold information relevant to a possible
indictment of Slobodan Milosevic, President of Serbia and
Montenegro, to provide the evidence of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide to the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. The
United States should make it a high priority to assemble this
information, review and where necessary declassify it, and
provide the documentation in the most expeditious manner
possible to the prosecutor's office at the Tribunal. I
respectfully suggest that you should include in your
directive instructions to agency heads to reprogram funds and
reassign personnel as necessary to permit immediate and
effective implementation of this requested directive.
As the sponsor of H. Con. Res. 304, expressing the sense of
the Congress regarding the culpability of Slobodan Milosevic
for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the
former Yugoslavia, that was adopted by the House by a record
vote of 369 to 1 on September 14, 1998, I was startled and
surprised to learn that the United States has not made an
effort to gather information on Milosevic as the House and
Senate requested. The attached article entitled ``CONFLICT IN
THE BALKANS: THE TRIBUNAL; Tactics Were Barrier To Top Serb's
Indictment,'' by Raymond Bonner, appeared in the March 29,
1999, edition of The New York Times. The article notes:
The Clinton administration could hardly have taken the
initiative to build a case against Milosevic, one senior
administration official explained Sunday, after it adopted
the policy in late 1994 of working with the Serbian leader to
bring about an end to the war in Bosnia. ``We, the United
States government, have been the largest source of
information for the tribunal, but we have never compiled
dossiers with the aim of indicting Milosevic, or any specific
individual,'' said this official, who spoke on condition of
anonymity. ``The indictment of Milosevic would require a
policy change by the United States,'' he added.
If this report is accurate, it is past time for U.S. policy
to include the pursuit of a public indictment of Milosevic by
the ICTY. Issuance of a Presidential directive establishing
such a policy, supported by adequate resources to assure its
immediate and effective implementation, is clearly justified
by the reports of the Helsinki Commission has received about
actions by Yugoslav Army, paramilitary, and police forces
under Milosevic's command in Kosovo that probably constitute
war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Congress
has already expressed its overwhelming support for such a
course of action by adopting both H. Con. Res. 304 and S.
Con. Res. 105 (copy attached) last year.
I look forward to learning what direction you have given
the policy-level officers of the United States government
concerning this issue.
Sincerely,
Christopher H. Smith,
Chairman.
[From the Washington Post, May 9, 1999]
War Criminals Belong in the Dock, Not at the Table
(By Mark S. Ellis)
Just a few weeks ago, I stood among a sea of 20,000
desperate people on a dirt airfield outside Skopje,
Macedonia, listening to one harrowing story after another. I
had come to the Stenkovec refugee camp to record those
stories and to help set up a system for documenting
atrocities in Kosovo.
As I collected their accounts of rape, torture and
executions at the hands of Serbian troops, I was struck by
the refugees' common yearning for justice. They wanted those
responsible for their suffering to be held accountable. Their
anger was not only directed at the people they had watched
committing such savagery, but at the political leaders--and
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in particular--who had
orchestrated the misery and continue to act with impunity.
The means exist to hold Milosevic and his underlings
accountable. In recent weeks, there have been calls from
members of Congress for his indictment by the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and
Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering has said that the
United States is gathering evidence that could lead to his
indictment. And there is plenty of evidence. In the Kosovo
town of Djalovica, for example, residents carefully
documented the Serbian barbarity for investigators, recording
the details of each murder, each rape, each act of violence,
before they fled the city. The time has come to act on the
testimony of these and other witnesses.
To do so, of course, flies in the face of last week's much
ballyhooed optimism about reaching a negotiated settlement
with Milosevic. However eager the Clinton administration
might be to reach a political and diplomatic solution, we
should remember that those who have recently suffered under
Serbian attacks reject outright the notion that justice must
sometimes be forfeited for the sake of diplomatic expediency.
During the Bosnian conflict, accountability was sacrificed on
the dubious premise that negotiating with someone who is
widely regarded as a war criminal is a legitimate exercise
in peace-making. We shouldn't make that mistake a second
time around. Milosevic's broken promises still echo among
the charred ruins and forsaken mass grave sites that
defile the landscape of Bosnia.
If Milosevic had been indicted for the mass killings and
summary executions that the Bosnian Serbs--with backing from
Serbia--are accused of carrying out, would he have acted so
brazenly to ``cleanse'' Kosovo of its ethnic Albanians?
Nobody knows. At the very least an indictment would probably
have deterred him; and apprehension and a trial would have
stopped him. But there should be no uncertainty about what
occurs when Milosevic is allowed to act unencumbered. The
time has come for the international war crimes tribunal to
help put an end to that.
Inaugurated by the United Nations on May 25, 1993, and
based in The Hague, the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal has, to
date, tried just 16 defendants. With a staff of more than 750
and an annual budget of more than $94 million, it has the
resources--and the authority--to indict Milosevic. Indeed,
failure to indict would reveal the tribunal's impotence in
the face of political controversy, and prove that this
institution of international law and justice is merely an
expensive and irrelevant relic.
How difficult would it be to indict Milosevic? Not
difficult at all. Under the tribunal's statute, the office of
the prosecutor need only determine ``that a prima facie case
exists.'' that's to say that the prosecutor must gather
evidence sufficient to prove reasonable grounds that
Milosevic committed a single crime under the tribunal's
extensive jurisdiction.
With this in mind, the chances of Milosevic being held
accountable increase with the arrival of each new group of
refugees driven from their homes in Kosovo. Their remarkably
consistent testimony is providing crucial information--now
being gathered by representatives of the tribunal as well as
by human rights organizations--about what has actually taken
place in Kosovo. These firsthand accounts are indispensable
in building a case against Milosevic--and the refugees I
interviewed during the days I was there are willing to
testify about what they saw.
But with refugees flooding out of Kosovo and some being
relocated in distant countries, the prosecutor's office must
ensure that testimony is taken swiftly, legally and
professionally. The lack of access to Kosovo by independent
journalists and human rights monitors and the extreme
instability of refugee life heighten the importance of
collecting these accounts while they are still fresh in
people's minds. Yet the prosecutor's office was slow to act.
A full five weeks went by before the tribunal sent a corps of
investigators to the region.
What crimes should the Yugoslav president be indicted for?
The tribunal's statute provides jurisdiction over ``serious
violations of international humanitarian law'' including both
``crimes against humanity'' and ``genocide,'' the most
abhorrent of all. Milosevic should be indicted for both.
Crimes against humanity are defined as ``systematic and
widespread'' and directed at any civilian population; they
include murder, extermination, imprisonment, rape and
deportation. They are distinguished from other acts of
communal violence because civilians are victimized according
to a systematic plan that usually emanates from the highest
levels of government.
In Kosovo, the forced deportation of ethnic Albanians by
the Yugoslav army and the Serbian Interior Ministry police
force is an obvious manifestation of such crimes. The
refugees with whom I spoke described being robbed, beaten,
herded together and forced to flee their villages with
nothing but the clothes they were wearing. By confiscating
all evidence of the ethnic Albanians' identity--passports,
birth certificates, employment records, driver's licenses,
marriage licenses--the Serbian forces also severed the
refugees' links with their communities and land in Kosovo.
This attempt to make each ethnic Albanian a non-person is
itself a crime against humanity. Emerging evidence of mass
killings, summary executions and gang rape lends further
credence to the widespread and systematic nature of these
crimes.
As to the crime of genocide, the tribunal's statute rests
on the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Genocide, which defines genocide as ``acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group.'' Arising as it did from the
extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany, the convention
invites comparison with the Holocaust and is intended to
prevent such heinous crimes from happening again. This
tragedy has not reached that perverse level of brutality but,
like earlier efforts to eliminate an entire people--whether
the Jews, the Armenians or the Tutsis--it should be
prosecuted as a crime of genocide.
[[Page 10902]]
The convention addresses intent, and stipulates that acts
designed to eliminate a people--in whole or in part--
constitute genocide. Among other acts covered by the
convention, crimes of genocide include ``(a) killing members
of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part.''
In the former Yugoslavia, acts of genocide have been
perpetrated through the abhorrent policy of ethnic
cleansing--that is, making areas ethnically homogenous by
expelling entire segments of the Kosovar population and
destroying the very fabric of a people.
Ethnic cleansing does not require the elimination of all
ethnic Albanians: it may target specific elements of the
community that make the group--as a group--sustainable. The
abduction the execution of the intelligentsia, including
public officials, lawyers, doctors and political leaders, for
example, is part of a pattern of ethnic cleansing and could
constitute genocide, as could targeting a particular segment
of the population such as young men. It is clear from the
refugees who have been interviewed that these acts are being
systematically committed in Kosovo.
An often overlooked but important element of the 1948
convention is that an individual can be indicated not only
for committing genocide, but also for conspiring to commit
genocide, inciting the public to commit genocide, attempting
to commit genocide or for complicity in genocide. The Point
is that criminal responsibility extends far beyond those who
actually perform the physical acts resulting in genocide. In
short, the political architects such as Milosevic are no less
responsible than the forces that carry out this butchery.
There is no immunity from genocide.
Prosecuting Milosevic will require relying on a legal
strategy based on the concept of ``imputed command
responsibility.'' Under this theory, Milosevic can be held
responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates if he
knew or had reason to know that crimes were about to be
committed and he failed to take preventive measures of to
punish those who had already committed crimes.
Since it is unlikely that Milosevic has allowed documentary
evidence to be preserved that would link him to atrocities in
Kosovo, the prosecutor's office will have to rely heavily on
circumstantial evidence to build its case. This means
identifying a consistant ``pattern of conduct'' that links
Milosevic to similar illegal acts, to the officers and
staff involved, or to the logistics involved in carrying
out atrocities. The very fact that atrocities have been so
widespread, flagrant, grotesque and similar in nature
makes it near certain that Milosevic knew of them; despite
his recent protestations to the contrary, it defies logic
to suggest that he could be unaware of what his forces are
doing.
What will the consequences be if the Yugoslav president is
indicted? First an indictment would send a clear message that
the international community will not negotiate or have
contact with a war criminal. It is current U.S. policy not to
negotiate with indicted war crimes suspects. And so it should
be. Milosevic would be stripped of international statute
except as a fugitive from justice. This might, in turn, open
an avenue for Serbians to once again distance themselves from
their leader's regime. Second, an indictment would likely
result in an ex parte hearing in which the prosecutor's
office could present its case in open court--without
Milosevic being there. By establishing a public record of
Milosevic's role in the crimes committed, such a hearing
would be cathartic for both victims and witnesses, and also
for citizens long denied access to the truth. Finally, the
tribunal would issue an international arrest warrant making
it unlikely that Milosevic would venture outside his
country's borders.
When I watched the bus loads of new arrivals enter the
Stenkovec camp, I saw a small girl's face pressed against the
window. Her hollow eyes seemed to stare at no one. History
was being repeated. In his opening statement at the Nuremberg
trials in 1945, U.S. chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson said,
``The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so
calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that
civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it
cannot survive their being repeated.'' Jackson was expressing
the hope that law would somehow redeem the next generation
and that similar atrocities would never again be allowed.
Today, we must hold personally liable those individuals who
commit atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. To negotiate with
the perpetrators of these crimes not only demands the
suffering of countless civilian victims, it sends a clear
message that justice is expendable, that war crimes can go
unpunished. Inevitably, lasting peace will be linked to
justice, and justice will depend on accountability. Failing
to indict Milosevic in the hope that he can deliver a
negotiated settlement makes a mockery of the words ``Never
Again.''
____________________
THE HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT OF 1999
______
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Reps. Gary Condit, Ed
Markey, John Dingell, Sherrod Brown, Jim Turner, and my other
colleagues in introducing the Health Information Privacy Act of 1999.
There is an urgent need for Congress to enact legislation to protect
the privacy of medical records. We have worked hard to develop a
consensus approach to achieve this goal.
Health records contain some of our most personal information.
Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive federal law that protects the
privacy of medical records. As a result, we face a constant threat of
serious privacy intrusions. Our records can be bought and sold for
commercial gain, disclosed to employers, and used to deny us insurance.
There have been numerous disturbing reports of such inappropriate use
and disclosure of health information.
When individual have inadequate control over their health
information, our health care system as a whole suffers. For example, a
recent survey by the California HealthCare Foundation found that one
out of every seven adults has done something ``out of the ordinary'' to
keep health information confidential, including steps such as giving
inaccurate information to their providers or avoiding care together.
The Health Information Privacy Act would protect the privacy of
health information and ensure that individuals have appropriate control
over their health records. It is based on three fundamental principles.
First, health information should not be used or disclosed without the
authorization or knowledge of the individual, except in narrow
circumstances where there is an overriding public interest. Second,
individuals should have fundamental rights regarding their health
records, such as the right to access, copy, and amend their records,
and the opportunity to seek protection for especially sensitive
information. Third, federal legislation should provide a ``floor,'' not
a ``ceiling,'' so that states and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services can establish additional protections as appropriate.
Congress faces an August 21 deadline for passing comprehensive
legislation to protect the privacy of health information. I am very
pleased to have come together with Mr. Condit, Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell,
Mr. Brown, and Mr. Turner in developing this commonsense legislation.
These members have been leaders in health care and privacy issues for
years. As a result of their expertise and insight, I believe we have
produced a consensus bill that colleagues with a wide spectrum of
perspective can support.
A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times exhorted Congress to
``fulfill its promise to pass the nation's first medical privacy
bill.'' It called for legislators in both houses to ``embrace [this]
compromise language'' that my colleagues and I have drafted.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this
legislation, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that
Congress meets its responsibility to address this important issue.
____________________
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO AWARD A CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO REV.
THEODORE HESBURGH, C.S.C.
______
HON. TIM ROEMER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to
award a Congressional Gold Medal to Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C. I
introduce this bill with Representatives Peter King, John Lewis, Pete
Visclosky, Mark Souder, Anne Northup and 85 original cosponsors in the
U.S. House of Representatives. It is my understanding that a companion
bill will be introduced in the U.S. Senate later today.
This bipartisan legislation recognizes Father Hesburgh for his many
outstanding contributions to the United States and the global
community. The bill authorizes the President to award a gold medal to
Father Hesburgh on behalf of the United States Congress. It also
authorizes the U.S. Mint to strike and sell duplicates to the public.
The public service career of Father Hesburgh, president emeritus of
the University of Notre Dame, is as distinguished as his many
educational contributions. Over the years, he has held 15 Presidential
appointments and he has remained a national leader
[[Page 10903]]
in the fields of education, civil rights and the development of the
Third World. Highlighting a lengthy list of awards to Father Hesburgh
is the Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor, bestowed
on him by President Johnson in 1964.
Mr. Speaker, justice has been the primary focus of Father Hesburgh's
pursuits throughout his life. He was a charter member of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, created by Congress in 1957 as a compromise
to end a filibuster in the U.S. Senate to prevent passage of any and
all legislation concerning civil rights in general and voting rights in
particular. Father Hesburgh chaired the commission from 1969 to 1972,
until President Nixon replaced him as chairman because of his criticism
of the Administration's civil rights record.
Father Hesburgh stepped down as head of the University of Notre Dame
in 1987, ending the longest tenure among active presidents of American
institutions of higher learning. He continues in retirement much as he
did as the Nation's senior university chief executive officer--as a
leading educator and humanitarian inspiring generations of students and
citizens, and generously sharing his wisdom in the struggle for the
rights of man.
I am personally grateful to Father Hesburgh for his friendship and
guidance during my years as a student at the University of Notre Dame.
My family shares my gratitude. My grandfather, William Roemer, was a
professor of philosophy during the early years of Father Hesburgh's
presidency, and my parents, Jim and Mary Ann Roemer, also worked during
his tenure at the University.
Mr. Speaker, I once asked Father Hesburgh for advice about how to
raise a happy and healthy family with children. His reply was helpful,
insightful and advice I continue to follow today: ``Love their
mother.'' I strongly believe Father Hesburgh's response here was just
one of many shining examples illustrating that his contributions to
family values in American society are as numerous and meaningful as his
devoted contributions to human rights, education, the Catholic Church
and the global community.
Mr. Speaker, today is Father Hesburgh's 82nd birthday, and I believe
that this is the most appropriate time for Congress and the entire
Nation to join me in recognizing this remarkable man and living legend
of freedom in America. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support
this bipartisan legislation and urge the House of Representatives to
pass this important measure.
____________________
RUTH HYMAN TESTIMONIAL DINNER AT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF
MONMOUTH COUNTY
______
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 3, 1999, the Jewish
Community Center of Greater Monmouth County in Deal, NJ, will honor one
of our leading citizens, Ms. Ruth Hyman, with a Testimonial Dinner. I
am pleased to add my voice to the chorus of praise for this exceptional
lady.
Mr. Speaker, it is rare to see someone who has made such an impact on
her community as Ruth Hyman has. Through her professional work, civic
commitments, wide-ranging network of friendships and a unique personal
flair, she has made a deep and lasting impression. Her accomplishments
include her apparel business, Ruth Hyman Fashions, and a lifetime of
work with numerous Jewish community organizations. Ruth is currently
the President of the Long Branch, NJ, Hadassah, a Benefactor and Board
Member of the Jewish Community Center, Board Member of the Jewish
Family and Children's Service, and Member of Congregation of Brothers
of Israel. She was the first Chairperson of the Women's Business and
Professional Division of the Jewish Federation. Some of her other
affiliations and leadership positions include, Past President and
International Life Member of American Red Magen David for Israel, life
member of Daughters of Miriam, AMIT, B'nai Brith, Past President of
Deborah, and Life Member of the Central New Jersey Home for the Aged.
She is also Chairperson of the Women's Division of Israel Bonds, a
position she has held for the past 25 years.
All of this hard work has not gone unnoticed, Mr. Speaker. Ruth has
been presented with the Hadassah National Leadership Award and the
Service Award from the Jewish Federation's Women's Campaign, and she
was selected as Chai Honoree and Woman of the Year of the Long Branch
Chapter of Hadassah. She was chosen by the Jewish Federation as Lay
Leader of the Year. She has been presented with the State of Israel
Bonds Golda Meir Award, the Service Award from the Jewish Federation
Women's Campaign, and the State of Israel Bonds Ben Gurion Award.
In addition to her major contributions at the Jewish Community
Center, Ruth is founder of Hadassah Hospital at Ein Kerem, Israel, and
the Mt. Scopus Hospital, where her name is inscribed on the hospital's
Pillar of Hope.
Mr. Speaker, as everyone who has known her will attest, Ruth Hyman's
hard work for the community emanates from her sincere warmth and
generosity. It is an honor to join with the JCC in paying tribute to
her, for who she is and what she's done.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. XAVIER BECERRA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on May 24, 1999, I was unavoidably detained
during two roll call votes: number 145, on the Motion to Suspend the
Rules and Pass H.R. 1251, Designating the Noal Cushing Bateman Post
Office Building; and number 146, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and
Pass H.R. 100, to Establish Designations for U.S. Postal Service
Buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Had I been present for the
votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call votes 145 and 146.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE FIELD MUSEUM'S DEDICATION OF THE SIDNEY R. AND ADDIE
YATES EXHIBITION CENTER
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to celebrate the
dedication of the Sidney R. and Addie Yates Exhibition Center located
at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, IL, on May 27, 1999.
The Center is so named because of the tremendous contributions that
Congressman Yates and his wife, Addie, made over the years in support
of the arts, humanities, and the environment.
There is no greater champion of the arts, humanities, and environment
than Congressman Sidney Yates, and there is no greater champion of
Congressman Yates than his lifelong mate, Addie. In her own right,
Addie has contributed greatly to causes close and dear to her heart.
She spearheaded the wonderful exhibit, ``The Children's Wall of
Remembrance,'' in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, commemorating the
nearly 1.5 million children who perished in the Holocaust. Through her
efforts, hundreds of thousands of American children were educated about
the Holocaust and expressed this learning by painting tiles, which
eventually found their way to this, now famous, Wall of Remembrance.
Congressman Yates' illustrious 48-year career in the House included
saving the arts and humanities from drastic budget cuts in the 1980's,
helping to establish the National Holocaust Museum here in Washington,
DC, empowering the Department of Interior to safeguard more public
lands and the rights of Native Americans, and protecting the Tongass
National Forest from logging. The field Museum's state-of-the-art new
exhibition center will be a lasting tribute to the work of Mr. Yates.
Located on Chicago's beautiful lakefront, the Field Museum is one of
the city's crown jewels. Since its founding in 1893, the Field Museum
has been a leader in the natural sciences, conducting world-class
research in disciplines such as anthropology, biology, agriculture,
ecology and sociology. The Field's collection of over 20 million
specimens, including its recent acquisition of ``Sue'', the largest and
most complete Tyrannosaurus Rex ever found, serve to both educate and
astound the visiting public.
The Sidney R. and Addie Yates Exhibition Center will serve as a
permanent tribute to the Congressman in Chicago. It will be seen by the
millions of visitors who make the Museum their destination for cultural
programming. The facility will offer new and unique temporary exhibits,
such as the current exhibit, ``The Art of Being Kuna: Layers of Meaning
Among the Kuna of Panama,'' which will instruct and delight visitors
from Chicago, the nation, and the world.
While we miss Sid Yates, we will never forget the legacy he left
behind, nor will the millions of visitors to the Field who will gaze
and look in wonderment at the exhibits placed in the Center named for
Sid and Addie Yates.
[[Page 10904]]
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1141, 1999 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT
______
HON. JULIAN C. DIXON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support this conference
report, as well as commend Chairman Young, Mr. Obey, and the conferees
for their hard work in bringing this difficult bill to the floor.
Clearly, many of my colleagues share my ambivalence about this
legislation. As a body, we seem to be all over the place on this
measure. Some of my friends on the Republican side voted earlier this
month to oppose NATO intervention in Kosovo; now they support doubling
the President's Kosovo budget request. My Democratic colleagues support
funding to provide relief to tornado victims in Oklahoma, hurricane
victims in Central America, and refugees in Kosovo; however, they balk
at the bill's environmental riders and inflated defense spending.
Members on both sides of the aisle decry emergency designation of non-
emergency items, but we have a bipartisan inability to admit that our
current budget caps are unrealistic and unworkable.
I have great concerns over portions of this legislation; however, on
balance, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the need for much of the funding
is real and outweighs my reservations. Given the situation in Kosovo
three months ago and our commitment to the defense of Europe, I believe
that President Clinton made the right decision to join our NATO allies
in acting against Milosevic's ethnic cleansing campaign. The
responsibility to allocate dollars to pay for the military campaign
falls on the Congress. While the increases over the President's request
for Kosovo should be addressed in the regular 2000 appropriations
process, we need to move forward to commit these funds.
I strongly support emergency funding for non-defense items in the
supplemental. The Congress has moved expeditiously, as is our
tradition, to address the destruction caused by recent tornadoes in
Oklahoma and Kansas. H.R. 1141 also includes long overdue relief to
Central America still struggling in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch.
Sorely needed relief is being supplied to America's farmers.
Today's vote to provide $100 million in military assistance and
economic support to Jordan coincides with the visit of King Abdullah.
These funds will enable that nation to assist in the Middle East peace
process, pursuant to the Wye River agreement. There is renewed optimism
that the recent elections in Israel can help reinvigorate that process.
This bill also includes some important legislative provisions. The
repeal of the June 15th funding cutoff for the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State and the Federal Judiciary, included in the fiscal
1999 omnibus bill, ensures that essential government functions no
longer face shutdown. The bill grants the Department of Justice the
authority to make restitution to Japanese Americans and Latin Americans
of Japanese descent who were forcibly detained in the United States
during World War II, but whose claims have not been settled. Settlement
of these claims will close a shameful episode in this great nation's
history.
The Republican majority continues to use appropriations bills to pass
damaging environmental provisions. This time we have Senate provisions
to protect narrow special interests at the expense of the environment.
We continue to delay reforms to the 1872 mining law and changes in oil
valuation which ensure that the government receives reasonable
royalties from drilling on federal land. I urge my colleagues to vote
to recommit this legislation so that the bill's onerous environmental
provisions can be removed.
So, while I share the reservations voiced by many of my colleagues, I
believe we need to move forward with the important work H.R. 1141
funds.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following statement to my
colleagues. When I was traveling back to Washington, D.C. on May 24,
1999, H.R. 974, the District of Columbia College Access Act, was passed
by voice vote. Due to the fact that I was commuting and the vote took
place before the 6 p.m. scheduled time, I missed the voice vote. I
would like to make it known for the record that had I been present, I
would have asked for a recorded vote and voted against this bill. I do
not feel that students in the District of Columbia should be made
``exceptions'' when it comes to paying in-states fees at any state
institution. This privilege is not granted to students in this country
who choose to attend a state college outside of their residential
state.
____________________
CROATIAN SONS LODGE NUMBER 170 OF THE CROATIAN FRATERNAL UNION
CELEBRATES ITS 92ND ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to congratulate
the Croatian Sons Lodge Number 170 of the Croatian Fraternal Union on
the festive occasion of its 92nd Anniversary and Golden Member banquet
on Sunday, June 6, 1999.
This year, the Croatian Fraternal Union will hold this gala event at
the Croatian Center in Merrillville, Indiana. Traditionally, the
anniversary celebration entails a formal recognition of the Union's
Golden Members, those who have achieved fifty years of membership. This
year's honorees who have attained fifty years of membership include:
Frances Joan Banchy, Willard A. Conway, Thomas Fadlevic, Marie Flynn,
Edward W. Fritz, Frank Grishka, Steve Massack, Violet Mae Mikulich,
John Mlacak, Mary Patterson, Marian P. Ritter, and Mike Svaco.
These loyal and dedicated individuals share this prestigious honor
with approximately 300 additional Lodge members who have previously
attained this status.
This memorable day will begin with a morning mass at Saint Joseph the
Worker Catholic Church in Gary, Indiana, with the Reverend Father
Benedict Benakovich officiating. In the afternoon, there will be a
program featuring a guest speaker, Mr. John Buncich, Sheriff of Lake
County, Indiana. The festivities will be culturally enriched by the
performance of several Croatian musical groups. The Croatian Glee Club,
``Preradovic,'' directed by Brother Dennis Barunica, and the Hoosier
Hrvarti Adult Tamburitza Orchestra, directed by Edo Sindicich, will
both perform at this gala event. The Croatian Strings Tamburitzans and
Junior Dancers directed by Dennis Barunica, and the Adult Kolo group,
under the direction of Elizabeth Kyriakides, will provide additional
entertainment for those in attendance. A formal dinner banquet at 4
o'clock in the afternoon will end the day's festivities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my other distinguished colleagues to join
me in commending Lodge president Betty Morgavan, and all the other
members of the Croatian Fraternal Union Lodge Number 170, for their
loyalty and radiant display of passion for their ethnicity. The
Croatian community has played a key role in enriching the quality of
life and culture of Northwest Indiana. It is my hope that this year
will bring renewed hope and prosperity for all members of the Croatian
community and their families.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO BLUE RIBBON SCHOOL RECIPIENT PRINCESS VICTORIA
KA'IULANI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
______
HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Princess
Victoria Ka'uilani Elementary School, which has earned the prestigious
Blue Ribbon Schools Award from the U.S. Department of Education.
The Blue Ribbon Schools Program identifies and gives national
recognition to a diverse group of public and private schools that have
been judged particularly effective in meeting local, state, and
national goals. In being selected, Princess Ka'iulani Elementary School
displayed the qualities of excellence that are necessary to prepare our
young people for the challenges of the next century. The school
demonstrates its strong leadership by providing high quality teaching,
instilling policies and practices that ensure a safe environment
conducive to learning, initiating strong parental and community
involvement, and helping all students achieve to high standards.
The awarding of Princess Victoria Ka'iulani Elementary School as a
Blue Ribbon School is made even more special by the fact that this year
marks the school's centennial anniversary. The school opened its doors
on April 22, 1899 and was named for the beautiful Princess Victoria
Ka'iulani. The name Ka'iulani
[[Page 10905]]
means ``Child from Heaven.'' The students come from diverse cultures
and various social backgrounds in the Kalihi-Palama neighborhood of
Honolulu, Hawaii. And while the neighborhood is sometimes known for
gangs and drug dealing, the school has a warm and friendly environment.
The school definitely exudes the spirit of ``aloha'' and ``ohana''
(family). This nurturing atmosphere helps students to believe in
themselves and offers an opportunity to learn and move forward.
There are a variety of factors that contribute to the school's
success. For example, at the beginning of each year, parents are given
a student ready reference guide, a school profile, and a syllabus of
the school's curriculum and activities. To further initiate parental
involvement, a monthly parent bulletin is jointly authored by Title I,
Parent-Community Networking Centers (PCNC), Primary School Adjustment
Project (PSAP) and the Principal. Community involvement is also well
established. Groups such as The Rotary Club of Metropolitan Honolulu,
the USS Louisville, 516th Signal Brigade from the Fort Shafter Army
Installation and the USS Chicago have contributed to the school's
various campus beautification projects, providing access to the
Internet and even assisting in classes and chaperoning field trips.
Also, English Second Language Learners (ESLL) provides support to 101
students whose native language range from Vietnamese, Ilocano,
Cantonese, Samoan, Tagalog, Visayan, Lao, Korean, Mandarin, Tongan,
Micronesian and Fijian. In fact, students have continued to improve in
Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores and due to a strong focus on
literacy, reading levels have significantly increased over the past few
years.
Again, I wish to commend and congratulate the students, teachers,
parents, administration, and staff of Princess Victoria Ka'iulani
Elementary School for its strong efforts and proud achievement in
receiving the Blue Ribbon Schools Award.
____________________
GUAM COMMEMORATES PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY
______
HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
of guam
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed
the law establishing National Police Week. Commemorated every year
since, this seven-day period begins on a Sunday and ends on a
Saturday--the last day being designated as ``Peace Officers Memorial
Day.''
This special period set aside to honor the nation's law enforcement
and memorialize their fallen comrades has always served to develop
close bonds between officers and their colleagues from across the
country. These ceremonies of recognition and remembrance bring people
together and enable survivors to gain strength from others who share
and understand their grief.
Here, in our nation's capital, more than 10,000 police officers,
survivors and supporters gathered to attend this year's activities. As
in the past years, National Police Week was a great demonstration of
this grateful nation's appreciation for the service and sacrifices of
peace officers.
In my home island of Guam, services were also held to recognize and
remember those who have fallen. In ceremonies held annually, peace
officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty were honored.
The list included: Conservation Officer Francisco Isezaki, Police
Officer I John M. Santos, Special Agent Larry D. Wallace, Police
Officer I Francisco A. Reyes, Police Officer III Thomas M. Sablan,
Police Reserve Officer Rudy C. Iglesias, Police Officer Reserve Helen
K. Lizama, Police Officer I Raymond S. Sanchez, Corrections Officer I
Douglas W. Mashburn, Police Officer I Eddie, A. Santos, USAF Sgt Stacey
E. Levay, Police Officer I Francisco D. Taitague, Police Officer I
Manuel A. Aquino, and Police Lieutenant Francisco C. Toves.
Those who have passed on within the past year were also remembered in
this year's ceremonies. This list included: Col Francisco T. Aguigui,
Sgt Jesus Pangelinan, Police Officer Joe Gutierrez, Detention Officer
Eugene Benavente, and Police Officer Ralph Bartels.
The people of Guam join the nation in paying tribute and offering
thanks for the service and sacrifices of peace officers.
____________________
TAIWAN CELEBRATES PRESIDENTIAL ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor
President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan who
celebrated his third anniversary in office on May 20th, 1999. President
Lee has amassed a number of accomplishments throughout the last three
years.
Of all the contemporary leaders that the Republic of China has had,
President Lee Teng-hui stands out due to his exceptional ability to
guide his nation through the transition to a democratic republic.
Furthermore, the effects of the severe financial crisis which have
affected much of Asia have been much less severe in Taiwan. This
discrepancy can be attributed to President Lee Teng-hui's ability to
maintain a stable democratic environment which has allowed a solid
foundation for its economy to grow. In addition, he has given his
people hope and optimism in Taiwan's ability to confront the future.
President Lee Teng-hui has also made great efforts in trying to reach
out to his compatriots on the Chinese mainland. Unfortunately, his
gestures of friendship have been answered with lukewarm responses at
best from the PRC leadership. However, President Lee Teng-hui refuses
to give up his hope of seeing a free and unified China in the future
and continues to pursue a policy to that end. His persistence is a sign
of his dedication to democracy and is greatly appreciated by the
Western world, and in particular the United States.
I wish President Lee Teng-hui every success in the future. He is a
respected leader of a free, prosperous and democratic country and
deserves no less than our full support.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ROBERT A. WEYGAND
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, because of weather-related travel
difficulties, I was unfortunately detained in my district Monday, May
24, 1999 and missed several votes as a result.
Had I been here, I would have voted in the following way:
I would have voted yea on rollcall votes 145 and 146.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CHARLES JOHN EBNER
______
HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good
friend and cousin, Charles ``Chuck'' Ebner, on the occasion of his 75th
birthday on June 7th. Chuck was born in Albany, New York, and currently
resides with his wife, Laurel, in Barberton, Ohio. I would like to
bring to the attention of my colleagues the dedicated service to
country and community that has distinguished the life of Charles John
Ebner.
In 1942, at the age of 18, Chuck enlisted in the U.S. Navy and was a
``selected volunteer'' for the U.S. Naval Armed Guard. He attended
Gunnery School in Virginia and then was assigned to his first ship, the
U.S.S. China Mail, whose mission was to transport troops to Africa.
On his second tour of duty on the China Mail, the ship
circumnavigated the world. The long voyage embarked from the West Coast
of Africa, traveling westward across the Atlantic to the Caribbean and
through the Panama Canal. After crossing the South Pacific to
Australia, the China Mail continued across the Indian Ocean and into
the Persian Gulf, where it dropped off cargo in Iran. The ship passed
through the Suez Canal and sailed across the Mediterranean on its
return to the West Coast of Africa.
Chuck then returned to the Brooklyn Navy Yard where he prepared for
his next assignment as a gunner on the U.S.S. Carlos Carrillo. Later he
was transferred to the U.S.S. Sacajawea, which took part in the
invasion of Leyte in the Philippines. Shortly thereafter, his ship
sailed to Pearl Harbor. At the end of the war, Chuck was ordered to
return to the United States where he was honorably discharged from the
U.S. Navy at Lido Beach, New York on October 14, 1945.
But Chuck's patriotism and sense of duty inspired him to re-enlist in
the U.S. Navy on February 13, 1947 and train to become a radioman. In
that capacity, he was assigned to the U.S.S. Prairie and stationed at
the Atlantic
[[Page 10906]]
City Naval Air Station until his second honorable discharge on February
5, 1952.
Near the end of his military career, Chuck married Laurel Kelley on
January 25, 1951. Upon his discharge, they moved to Barberton, Ohio--
known as the ``Magic City.'' Chuck and Laurel have three adult
children, Cathy, Linda and Jack, and have been blessed with nine
grandchildren.
Chuck's commitment and dedication to his country and community did
not end with his military career. During his years in Barberton, Chuck
coached Little League and in 1959 joined the Barberton All Sports
Boosters--on which he served as an officer for ten years and as
president for three. Chuck also served as president of the Barberton
Chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes for five years and was
the founder of the Barberton Sports Hall of Fame in 1979. Chuck was
elected the first president of that organization and still serves in
that position.
In 1980, Chuck was nominated for the Distinguished Service Award by
the Barberton Jaycees for his sports activities in the community. He
continued his strong commitment to youth and sports by organizing the
Barberton Reunion Basketball game to honor the Barberton State Champs
of 1976. The sold-out game raised money for the Barberton Little
League, Crippled Children Circus Fund and the Barberton All Sports
Boosters. Chuck also organized student dances at Barberton High and
started the All Sports Banquets.
Among Chuck's many community service awards for these and other
activities, he received the ``Andy Palich Outstanding Athletic Service
Award'' from the Summit County Sports Hall of Fame, of which he is now
a board member.
Chuck is now retired from Seiberling Rubber and from his employment
as the Outside Bailiff for the Barberton Municipal Court. But he is not
retired from his community. Chuck continues to dedicate even more of
his time and boundless energy to promote sports among the youth of
Barberton.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chuck Ebner on his 75th birthday for his
lifelong dedication and commitment not only to his country, but to his
family and the youth of his community. He is a true role model for our
young people. I wish him continued success and good health in the years
to come.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO MR. IRVING LITTMAN
______
HON. CARRIE P. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr.
Irving Littman, who will celebrate his 80th birthday on July 27, 1999.
Mr. Littman served with the First Field General Hospital in the
invasion of North Africa in World War II. As a sergeant at that time,
it was his duty to give anesthesia in the operating room to soldiers
wounded in combat. Mr. Littman was awarded many citations and medals
for his four years of gallant military service to his country.
Upon return to the United States after the war, Mr. Littman became
one of the youngest Lincoln-Mercury dealers in our nation. He retired
to Florida. He campaigned for elected officials, and was the secretary/
treasurer for the Milton Littman Scholarship Foundation, which to date
has presented 236 one-thousand-dollar scholarships to worthy young
students from four different high schools in Dade County.
Mr. Littman is married to his beloved wife, Mavis, and they have a
loving daughter, Francine. It is a privilege to pay tribute to such a
compassionate American citizens as Mr. Irving Littman on the occasion
of his upcoming birthday, and I wish him many more years of health and
success in the service of his community.
____________________
KOSOVO REFUGEES
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting today for the Record the
enclosed article written by Mr. Leonard Cole of Ridgewood, New Jersey.
Mr. Cole, who serves as the distinguished chairman of the Communal
Unity Committee of United Jewish Appeal Federation of Bergen County and
North Hudson and as vice chair of the Jewish Council for Public
Affairs, recently returned from refugee camps in Tirana, Albania. In
his article, Mr. Cole eloquently illustrates the remarkable
humanitarian efforts being made by the Jewish Agency for Israel, the
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, in association with the
United Jewish Communities, to assist refugees displaced as a result of
the conflict in Kosovo. I am confident that all of our colleagues will
find much food for thought in this well written article.
[From the Jewish Standard, May 14, 1999]
Finding Kindness Amid Chaos
(By Leonard A. Cole)
Nearly 15 years ago, on a two-day mission to Israel, I
witnessed lines of bedraggled Ethiopian Jews emerge from an
El Al airplane. They had suddenly been transported from a
14th-century existence in Ethiopia to a 20th-century life in
Israel. Last week, during another two-day mission, I
witnessed a sad obverse. In the company of Israeli and
American Jews, I visited refugees in a camp in Tirana,
Albania, whose lives have been reduced to primitive survival.
Among the 800,000 ethnic Albanians booted out of Kosovo,
5,000 were crowded into this Tirana camp. Living eight and
nine to a tent, able to bathe once a week, they are uncertain
where or if they have a future. The only heartening
similarity between the experiences of the Ethiopian Jews and
Kosovar Muslims has been the rapid humanitarian response by
Jews and other caring people around the world. And none have
shown more caring than the people of Israel.
For seven weeks, out of noble intention, NATO has been
pounding Yugoslav targets with bombs and missiles. The
attacks were intended to stop Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic's policy of murder and deportation of ethnic
Albanians from his country's province of Kosovo. Milosevic's
penchant for ``ethnic cleansing'' is too reminiscent of
Hitler's war against the Jews for the Jewish people not to
support intervention. But diplomatic and military
miscalculations have become painfully apparent: the failure
of NATO's firepower quickly to stop Milosevic's actions; the
depressing likelihood that the bombing actually accelerated
the deportations; the destruction of unintended targets,
including the Chinese embassy, a hospital complex, and
convoys of refugees. The unanticipated calculus was
underscored for me by the sight of scores of U.S. helicopters
sitting idly in Albania's major airport. Although touted as
especially effective against ground targets, none has yet
been used, apparently in fear that Serbian firepower was
still too threatening to these low-flying craft. Exactly how
the military and politicial issues will be resolved remains
uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the victims of the
conflict need immediate attention.
In the early hours of May 5, our plane, chartered by the
Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), was preparing to take off
from Ben-Gurion airport. We were beginning a two-day
whirlwind of visits to Albania, Hungary, and back to Israel.
We would be traveling through a thicket of suffering, but
also witnessing efforts to alleviate that suffering. Under
the auspices of the newly constituted United Jewish
Communities (UJC), some two dozen representatives from North
American federations had come to bear witness. Described by
the UJC as a ``rescue mission,'' our venture really was more
a search--a search for information, for meaning, and
ultimately for ways to help.
``Leave the last 12 rows empty,'' the stewardess
instructed. Along with other blear-eyed passengers, I
squeezed into the forward section. Our weight was needed as a
balance for the supplies that had been loaded into the rear
cargo area. Like 23 previous flights from Israel, eight of
them chartered by JAFI, the main purpose was to deliver
supplies obtained from contributions by Israelis and Jews
throughout the world.
At the refugee camp, we watched as carton after carton was
unloaded from trucks that had transported them from the
plane. In orderly fashion the boxes were opened and the
contents were distributed by representatives of various
humanitarian groups, including JAFI, the American Jewish
Joint Distribution committee (JDC), and Latet, an
Organization of Israeli volunteers.
And it is well to remember that JAFI, JDC, and other
helping agencies, in association with the UJC, are truly the
point organizations for the rest of us. the money and
supplies have come from federations and from individual Jews
around the world. Israeli citizens alone have contributed
more than $1 million in food, blankets, towels, diapers,
soap, toys, and more. The Israelis built and staffed the
first field hospital in a refugee camp.
Delivering supplies to the Albanian Muslims was only part
of the humanitarian effort we witnessed in that part of the
world. We next flew to Hungary, where we met dozens of Jews
from Serbia who fled the bombings and were now guests of the
Hungarian Jewish community in Budapest. On the second day of
the war. Asa Zinger, head of the Jewish community in
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, phoned his counterpart in Budapest,
Gustav Zoltai. When told of the distress among the 3,000 Jews
of Serbia, Zoltai quickly arranged for his community to
receive as many of them as possible. both leaders, now in
their 70s, are Holocaust survivors. ``For us,'' said Zoltai,
``it would be difficult to know of such
[[Page 10907]]
suffering by a Jewish community and not to help.''
About 400 Jews from Serbia have become guests of the
Budapest Jewish community. Since males between 14 and 65
cannot leave Serbia, families are now being split. In come
cases, mothers have come with their children to Budapest; in
others just the children have been sent.
But that is not all. Israel is also playing host to Muslim
and Jewish refugees from the fighting areas. In fact, when we
flew back to Israel that evening, 32 Yugoslav Jews who had
been staying in Budapest came with us.
Some were coming as visitors, and others to make aliyah.
All these efforts are also being assisted by JAFI and the
JDC--that is, through resources provided by Jews everywhere.
In Israel, we visited with several of the hundreds of
Kosovars and Serbs--Muslims and Jews--that the state is
hosting.
Each had his own sad story, though all expressed gratitude
for the kindness extended by Israelis and other Jews. Perhaps
the most memorable exchange occurred when a member of the UJC
delegation asked a Jewish family from Kosovo what they had
expected before arriving in Israel. Anita Conforti, 22,
translated her mother's answer into English: ``Warm deserts
and cold people.''
What did you find after you got here?
``Paradise.''
____________________
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION TECHNICAL CENTER IN SOUTH CHARLESTON
CELEBRATES ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ROBERT E. WISE, JR.
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to
the Union Carbide Corporation Technical Center in South Charleston in
celebration of its 50th Anniversary.
As an innovator for Union Carbide activities worldwide, the Technical
Center was first occupied in April of 1949 in the Research Building.
Occupants from the Union Carbide South Charleston Plant soon occupied
the Technical Center.
Since that time 50 years ago, the site has grown to approximately 650
acres with approximately 125 acres developed. By offering support
through research and development of technology used in the chemical
industry and providing engineering for the construction of plant
facilities and support to computer systems, the Technical Center offers
worldwide assistance to Union Carbide manufacturing businesses.
Building upon its success as an innovator as a multinational
petrochemical company, Union Carbide now provides 25 percent of the
world's manufacture of polyethylene. It should come as no surprise that
Union Carbide has garnered awards for three of its products and
services which were primarily developed at the Technical Center. These
include the UNIPOL process for polyethylene, the low-pressure OXO
process, used to make alcohols and acids and finally the production of
ethylene oxide and the derivatives of ethylene oxide, in which Union
Carbide is the world's largest producer.
I commend Dr. William H. Joyce, CEO of Union Carbide Corporation and
the employees of the Technical Center and look forward to continuing a
very productive working relationship. The Technical Center, in addition
to being a highly profitable and decorated organization, has been a
good corporate citizen in its involvement as volunteers in the area and
a good partner for the community.
I again congratulate the Union Carbide Corporation Technical Center
in recognition of its anniversary and offer my wishes for continued
success and prosperity.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MS. AMANDA IANNUZZI, BRONZE CONGRESSIONAL AWARD WINNER
______
HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of an outstanding
young adult from the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, Ms.
Amanda Iannuzzi, a Congressional Award medal recipient. Amanda's
commitment to self-development and community involvement serves as an
inspiration to people of all ages, and illustrates the accomplishments
that come with hard work and determination.
Without motivation, however, hard work and determination are destined
to remain unfulfilled ideals. Amanda's motivation breathed life into
innumerable commendable acts. Not only did Amanda involve herself in
volunteer work, but invested time in broadening her artistic and
physical skills. While much of what is directed towards young people is
prescriptive in nature, it is important to note that these acts were of
Amanda's own design and were completed with her own resolve.
Upon review of Amanda's achievements, one is particularly struck by
the considerable amount of time that was devoted to obtaining this
award. Hundreds of hours over the course of months were invested.
Clearly, Amanda recognizes the immense value of giving one's time to
help others. It is my hope that your actions foreshadow a life
distinguished by the pursuit of new challenges.
Congratulations Amanda! Best wishes to you for continued success.
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO THE LATE SHEL SILVERSTEIN
______
HON. PETER DEUTSCH
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to the life of Shel
Silverstein, acclaimed children's author. I am deeply saddened that
Shel Silverstein passed away at the age of 66 in Key West, Florida, on
May 10, 1999. We mourn the loss of a man whose legacy will be
remembered for years to come.
Mr. Silverstein is best known for his children's poetry, but I think
it is safe to say that his poetry is enjoyable to adults as well. I,
myself, am quite familiar with his works, as my daughter Danielle is a
big fan of his poetry. Indeed, I am sure that many of my colleagues
would recognize his work which includes Falling Up, A Light in the
Attic, and Where the Sidewalk Ends.
Over the course of his career, Shel Silverstein won numerous awards
for his work, including the Michigan Young Readers Award for Where the
Sidewalk Ends. His books, which Shel illustrated himself, are packed
with humor and colorful characters, and sold over 14 million copies
throughout the course of his life. This is truly a testament to the
widespread appeal of his work.
Though books such as the Giving Tree were the catalyst which led to
Shel Silverstein's international acclaim, few people realize that Shel
began his career in the 1950s while serving with the United States
armed forces in Japan and Korea. While stationed overseas, Mr.
Silverstein began drawing cartoons for ``Stars and Stripes,'' the
American military publication.
Apart from his success as a writer of poetry, Shel Silverstein was
also successful in his attempts to write country-western music. In
1969, Johnny Cash made the Silverstein-penned tune ``A Boy Named Sue''
into a bonafide hit. Loretta Lynn made Shel's song ``Ones on the Way''
famous as well. In 1980, Shel even recorded an album of his own called
``The Great Conch Train Robbery.'' This title clearly shows Shel's
fondness for his home in Key West, as the title references the car of
his friend Buddy Owen, owner of B.O.'s Fish Wagon, one of Shel's
favorite places to eat.
Mr. Speaker, while Shel Silverstein's passing is a tremendous loss
for our nation and the world, I can say without hesitation that his
kindness and generosity will be missed especially by the Key West
community. He was an extraordinary human being, but we are lucky to
have so many wonderful memories of his life and work.
____________________
HONORING SISTER BRIGID DRISCOLL
______
HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join in
honoring sister Brigid Driscoll, President of Marymount College, who,
as a prominent figure from my district, has been a role model for the
espousal of women's education for the last forty years. Sister Brigid,
who will be retiring from her position in June, has devoted her life to
Marymount College, establishing its solid foundation within the
educational arena and the greater Tarrytown, New York community.
For more than twenty years as its president, and before that as an
administrator and faculty member, Sister Brigid's visionary leadership
has overseen Marymount's transformation from a homogeneous liberal arts
college exclusively for women, to an institution that maintains a
strong focus on women, while
[[Page 10908]]
serving an inclusive population of adult and international students.
She has been recognized as an outspoken supporter of state and federal
financial assistance for students, as well as a public policy advocate
for independent higher education.
Among Sister Brigid's many contributions to Marymount was her vision
for an educational setting that would enable many people in the
surrounding communities to reach their full potential through
education. In 1975, Sister Brigid founded Marymount Weekend College,
one of the country's first full bachelor's degree programs for working
women and men exclusively in the weekend format.
Sister Brigid's leadership and interest in the community is far
reaching, as is her service and expertise in the field of education.
Currently, she serves as a board member of First American Bankshares,
Inc., the Westchester County Association, and as a member of Women's
Forum, a group of 300 leading women in the professions, arts, and
business in New York whose membership is by invitation only. In the
educational sector, her present directorships include Saint Mary's
College in Notre Dame, Indiana, Marymount School in New York City, the
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and the
New York State Commission of Independent Colleges and Universities.
In the past, Sister Brigid has served on the board of Axe-Houghton
funds, the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Commission, the United Way of
American Second Century Initiative, the National Board of Girl Scouts
USA, Governor Mario Cuomo's task force on the General Motors Plant
Closing in Tarrytown, and Governor George Pataki's Transition Team for
Education. Her previous directorships include the Council of
Independent Colleges, the Westchester Education Coalition, and the
Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, where she also
served as a representative to the Consultation on the Apostolic
Constitution on Catholic Universities in Rome.
Recently, the issue of gender bias in America classrooms has sparked
a national advertising campaign supporting women's achievements in
education. Sister Brigid served on the committee of the Women's College
Coalition that approved the creative content for the national campaign.
Before the idea of this campaign was ever conceived, Marymount College,
with the full support of Sister Brigid, responded to the challenge of
making the educational needs of all women and girls a priority by
creating the Marymount Institute for the education of women and girls,
an organization offering workshops to educators and parents in the area
of gender equity.
For her dedicated and distinguished service in many areas of
professional and community life, Sister Brigid has been honored by the
Westchester Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews,
the Sleepy Hollow Chamber of Commerce, and the Saint Jude's
Habilitation Institute. Governor George Pataki honored her earlier this
year with the Governor's Award for Excellence from the New York State
Division of Women.
Honorary Doctorates of Humane Letters have been bestowed on Sister
Brigid by Siena College and Marymount Manhattan College which, in
addition, presented her with the Alumni Association Award for
Distinguished Life Achievement. Now, at the close of the millennium,
Marymount College has conferred upon its esteemed leader the Honorary
Degree of Doctor of Humane Letters. Finally, in a ceremony later this
month, Sister Brigid will be granted an Honorary Doctorate of Humane
Letters by the College of New Rochelle.
After hearing this brief portrait of a remarkable woman, I know that
my colleagues will want to join me in honoring and commending Sister
Brigid Driscoll for her many achievements. I am confident that she will
remain a vital component of Marymount's commitment to achieving
equality of opportunity for women.
We join with Sister Brigid's many friends, students and admirers in
wishing her good health and happiness in her retirement.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE AND POLITICAL FREEDOM ACT
______
HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today Majority Whip Tom DeLay and I are
joining the chorus of calls in Congress for campaign finance reform
because we agree that the current system is broken. There is something
fundamentally wrong with the way political campaigns in America today
are financed.
However, the reforms encompassed in the bill we are introducing today
take a very different direction than most bills that have been
introduced on campaign finance thus far. These bills share a common
thread--they call for more government regulation into federal
campaigns.
I believe that the proposals that call for greater regulation of our
campaign finance system misdiagnose the problem. I submit that what has
caused our failed campaign finance system is the regulation itself. If
we want to deal with the real, underlying problem, we need to undo the
regulations.
The Doolittle-DeLay approach is the proper remedy to what ails our
campaign finance system in that it removes the regulations. Moreover,
and no less important, is that this approach is consistent with the
Constitution because it restores our first amendment right to engage in
political speech.
In 1974, in the wake of Watergate, Congress threw a regulatory web
over the campaign finance system, a system that had gone largely
unregulated throughout our nation's history.
Within two years of the reform's passage, the Supreme Court, in
Buckley versus Valeo, struck down major parts of the new regulatory
scheme on first amendment grounds.
Since that time, the campaign finance regulators have blamed every
problem involving campaign financing on the Court's decision. There are
those of us, however, who believe the problem is not that which the
Court struck down, but rather that which was left intact, the present
campaign finance law.
The regulators would do well to remember that it was not the Supreme
Court that put unreasonably low limits on how much individuals and
groups could contribute to campaigns while failing to index those
limits for inflation. It was not the Supreme Court that ran roughshod
over the first amendment rights of office-seekers and other citizens.
And it was not the Supreme Court that stacked the deck against
challengers, locking in incumbents at an unprecedented rate. No, the
problem is not that the Court invalidated part of the regulators; grand
scheme; the problem is that too much of their scheme remains intact.
I believe it is time we declare ``the emperor has no clothes.'' It's
time to dispel the myths perpetuated by the architects of today's
failed campaign finance scheme. And while the regulators devise new
such schemes on how to limit participation in elections and eliminate
money from campaigns, we should look at the real problems that have
been caused by their regulatory approach to reform.
Today's campaign finance system requires current and prospective
office-holders to spend too much time raising money and not enough time
governing and debating issues. The present system has also failed to
make elections more competitive and allows millionaires to purchase
congressional seats. While a millionaire can write a check for whatever
amount he or she wants to their election campaign, everyone else is
forced to live under the same hard dollar limits that were put in place
in 1974, which have not even been adjusted for inflation.
Today's system hurts voters in our republic by forcing more
contributors and political activists to operate outside of the system
where they are unaccountable and, consequently, less responsible. The
big government reformers agree with me on this point, but their
solution, of course, is more regulation. Beyond being unconstitutional,
more regulation, such as banning soft money and limiting issue ads (ala
Shays-Meehan), will only make the system worse. I don't often agree
with my hometown newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, but last year they put
out an editorial on CFR which I agreed with on many points. Speaking
about the Shays-Meehan bill they said: ``It centers on two big wrong-
headed reforms: prohibiting national political parties from collecting
or using ``soft-money'' contributions, and outlawing independent
political advertising that identifies candidates within 60 days of a
federal election. That means the law would prohibit issue campaigning
at precisely the time when voters are finally interested in listening--
hardly congruent with free speech. Since that kind of restriction is
likely to be tossed by the courts as a violation of constitutional free
speech guarantees, the net effect of the changes will be to weaken
political parties while making the less accountable ``independent
expenditure groups'' kings of the campaign landscape.
I couldn't agree more. Because as long as we have a shred of a
Constitution left, individuals will have the ability to act
independently and spend as much as they have want on political causes.
So, the net result of a Shays-Meehan bill would be to push political
spending even farther away from the responsible candidate-centered
campaign.
These are the problems we face today. And before we decide which
reforms should be implemented, we need to decide where we want
[[Page 10909]]
to go, and what kind of new system we wish to create.
To me, the answer is simple. Our goal should be a system that
encourages political speech, and promotes freedom and a more informed
electorate. We should strive for a system in which any American citizen
can compete for and win elective office; a system that is consistent
with the Constitution by allowing voters to contribute freely to the
candidate of their choice.
By removing the limits on contributions, scrapping the failed
presidential finance system, and providing full and immediate
disclosure, the Citizen Legislature and Political Freedom Act would
dramatically move us toward a desirable, constitutional, and workable
campaign finance system.
____________________
HOLT-LUCAS-MOORE ``LOCK-BOX'' WILL PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer, along with my
colleagues, Representatives Lucas and Moore, legislation to safeguard
two of our nation's most important programs for the elderly, Social
Security and Medicare.
As I travel around my central New Jersey District, I hear constantly
from people who rely on Social Security and Medicare. Congress has no
greater domestic priority this year than strengthening and protecting
Social Security and Medicare. Our bill would ensure that that priority
is recognized in law.
The Holt-Lucas-Moore Social Security and Medicare ``lock-box'' would
require that every penny of the entire budget surplus, not just the
Social Security surplus, be saved until legislation is enacted to
strengthen and protect Social Security and Medicare.
Any new spending increases would have to be fully offset until
solvency has been extended for Social Security by 75 years and for
Medicare by 30 years. This requirement would be enforced by new points
of order against any budget resolutions or legislation violating this
condition.
My colleagues and I believe that spending any projected budget
surpluses before protecting and strengthening Social Security and
Medicare would be wrong. Projected budget surpluses over the next
decade offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for addressing the
challenges that Social Security and Medicare face. This hard-won
achievement resulted from responsible steps that were taken in the
past. We should not deviate from the path of responsibility now, with
problems looming over the horizon for Social Security and Medicare. In
fact, we should follow the old adage to ``fix our roofs when the sun is
shining.'' This is in keeping with what the President has proposed.
Some portion of the surpluses outside of Social Security and Medicare
will be needed to address the challenges that those programs will face.
Thus, we should save Social Security and Medicare first before
squandering any of the Social Security surplus, the Medicare surplus or
any other government surplus.
Furthermore, paying off the public debt can make an important
indirect contribution to the sustainability of Social Security and
Medicare. Virtually all economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman
Greenspan, argue that paying down the public debt would increase
national savings, promote long-run economic growth and create a larger
future economy to support a larger, retired population. Fiscal
discipline has served our economy well in recent years by helping to
sustain the longest peacetime expansion in United States history.
We are offering this proposal now because we are concerned about the
carelessness with which some Social Security ``lock-box'' proposals are
being brought to the floor, completely bypassing the normal committee
process. Proposals to protect and strengthen Social Security and
Medicare deserve thorough examination and careful consideration.
Congress should not take short-cuts when considering changes to these
hallmark programs for America's seniors.
For example, Congress is expected to consider this week the Herger-
Shaw ``lock-box'' bill, which offers only the minimum protection for
Social Security and Medicare. While Herger-Shaw does attempt to protect
the Social Security surplus, merely doing this does nothing to extend
solvency for Social Security, and it does nothing at all for Medicare.
The Holt-Lucas ``lock-box'' is superior to Herger-Shaw because its
lock-box is more secure and has more money in it. Holt-Lucas saves the
entire surplus, not just the Social Security surplus.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are some of the most
important and successful programs of the 20th Century. We must not
forget that they provide vitally important protections for American
seniors. A majority of workers have no pension coverage other than
Social Security, and more than three fifths of seniors receive most of
their income from Social Security.
Let's put the need of America's current and future retirees first.