[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 563-570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 2022. A bill to provide for the development of remedies to resolve 
unmet community land grant claims in New Mexico; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


               new mexico community land grant review act

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, 
along with Senator Domenici, which will move us toward resolving a long 
standing issue of great controversy in my State of New Mexico.
  Today marks the anniversary of one of the most significant dates in 
the creation of modern America. On this date one hundred and fifty-two 
years ago, our government and the government of Mexico entered into an 
agreement which ended a bloody war, and which brought a huge swath of 
territory into the United States.
  The addition of this new territory, which became the American 
Southwest, forever changed the makeup of our nation, its place on the 
world stage, and its culture. The infusion of a large Hispanic 
population and a myriad of Native American communities into the fabric 
of American society enriched the diversity of country and strengthened 
the dynamism of our culture.
  It is a day which should be one for celebration. A day in which New 
Mexicans should reflect on the confluence of cultures which make up our 
state. It is a day to remember the sweat and grit of the people who 
traveled north up El Camino Real (the Royal Road) passing through one 
area that was so arduous that it was known as La Jornada del Muerte 
(the Journey of Death), and those who came west over the Santa Fe trail 
to reach New Mexico and who, together with the Pueblo, Apache, and 
Navajo peoples who had already carved a life out of this arid land, 
built our modern culture.
  It is a day for celebration, but unfortunately it is also a day which 
recalls great pain for many. For that agreement between nations which 
established the American Southwest, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 
also carried with it a promise to the new citizens of America. That 
promise was

[[Page 564]]

that their ownership of lands established under Spanish and Mexican law 
would be respected and validated by their new government. Many who 
would be celebrating today do not believe that that promise was kept. 
The serious questions that have been raised concerning the validation 
of Spanish and Mexican community land grant claims in New Mexico cast a 
cloud over this day, and a cloud over our national honor.
  Given the long history of dispute over community land grant claims in 
New Mexico, and the large amount of disputed land, a credible neutral 
analysis of the United States' implementation of the Treaty has been 
needed. To that end, Senator Domenici and I have requested that the 
General Accounting Office review the United States' legal obligations 
under the Treaty and whether the Federal government met those 
obligations with regard to community land grant claims.
  This will be the first national study of the issue, and it is 
overdue. Given how long it has taken for the heirs of these land grants 
to get a credible review of their claims, it is that important that 
this study not end up gathering dust on some shelf. If the GAO finds 
that the United States denied these communities their rights under the 
treaty, then it is imperative that the Federal government develop a 
remedy to resolve this issue.
  Therefore I, along with Senator Domenici, am introducing a bill today 
which will move us in that direction. This bill would require that, 
should the GAO find that the United States has failed to meet its 
Treaty obligations, the Justice Department prepare for the President a 
list of methods to remedy the problem, and that the President must 
propose to Congress his preferred remedy.
  Unlike the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which was an agreement 
between nations, this bill represents a promise directly to land grant 
heirs that their claim will be fully considered by the United States 
Government. I hope we can pass this measure, and make that promise to 
them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered tob e printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2022

       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 ``New Mexico Community Land 
     Grant Review Act.''

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for the 
     development of potential remedies to resolve unmet 
     obligations by the United States with regard to community 
     land grant claims in New Mexico under the Treaty of 
     Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
       (b) Definitions.--As used in this Act:
       (1) Treaty of guadalupe-hidalgo.--The term ``Treaty of 
     Guadalupe-Hidalgo'' means the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, 
     Limits, and Settlement (Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo), between 
     the United States and the Republic of Mexico, signed February 
     2, 1848, with the amending Protocol of Queretaro signed May 
     26, 1848; entered into force on May 30, 1848 (TS 207; 9 
     Bevans 791).
       (2) Community land grant.--The term ``community land 
     grant'' means a village, town, settlement, or pueblo 
     consisting of land held in common (accompanied by lesser 
     private allotments) by three or more families under a grant 
     from the King of Spain (or his representative) before the 
     effective date of the Treaty of Cordova, August 24, 1821, or 
     from the authorities of the Republic of Mexico before May 30, 
     1848, in what became the State of New Mexico, regardless of 
     the original character of the grant.
       (3) Land grant claim.--The term ``land grant claim'' means 
     a claim to land owned by a community land grant.
       (4) GAO.--The term ``GAO'' means the United States General 
     Accounting Office.
       (c) Findings.--The Congress finds:
       (1) New Mexico has a unique and complex history regarding 
     land ownership due to the substantial number of land grants 
     awarded by the King of Spain and the Republic of Mexico as an 
     integral part of the colonization of New Mexico prior to the 
     takeover of the area by the United States under the Treaty of 
     Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
       (2) Under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the United 
     States agreed to respect valid land grants claims.
       (3) Several studies, including the New Mexico Land Grant 
     Series published by the University of New Mexico, have called 
     into question whether the United States has fulfilled its 
     obligations under the Treaty. There continue to be claims 
     that citizens of the United States were illegally deprived of 
     the property rights protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe-
     Hidalgo through the actions of the Office of the Surveyor 
     General established in 1854, the Court of Private Land Claims 
     established in 1891, and the Territory of New Mexico.
       (4) There was a remarkable difference in outcomes between 
     the land claims adjudications in the State of California, 
     where approximately 73 percent of the claimed acreage was 
     confirmed, and the former Territory of New Mexico, where only 
     24 percent of the claimed acreage was confirmed. This 
     difference in outcomes raises serious questions as to whether 
     adjudications in New Mexico were equitably and fairly 
     administered.
       (5) Following the United States' war with Mexico and for 
     much of this century, the economy of New Mexico was dependent 
     on land resources. When the land grant claimants lost title 
     to their land, the predominantly Hispanic communities in New 
     Mexico lost a keystone to their economy, and the effects of 
     this loss had long lasting economic consequences for these 
     communities.
       (6) Whether the United States failed to meet its 
     obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo has been a 
     source of continuing controversy and has left a lingering 
     sense of injustice in some communities in New Mexico over the 
     last one-hundred and fifty years.
       (7) This issue, which regards the integrity of the United 
     States with regards to its international commitments and its 
     commitments to its citizenry, must be resolved.
       (8) The GAO has been requested to review how the United 
     States implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-
     Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of community land 
     grant claims New Mexico, and to provide a report to the 
     Congress and the President by December 31, 2002, which 
     includes an assessment of whether the procedures established 
     by the United States to implement the treaty appear to have 
     been adequate, and whether the community land grants claims 
     appear to have been equitably adjudicated.

     SEC. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND 
                   PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL.

       If the GAO concludes, in the report to Congress and the 
     President described in Section (2)(c)(8) of this Act, that 
     the obligations of the United States under the Treaty of 
     Guadalupe-Hidalgo regarding the protection of the community 
     land grant rights do not appear to have been met, the 
     Department of Justice shall prepare for the President a list 
     of alternative methods to remedy the problem. The President 
     shall then submit to Congress recommendations to resolve 
     these claims within six months of the submission of the GAO 
     report. In no event shall these recommendations include the 
     divestiture of private property rights.

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining 
Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation to help resolve whether the 
federal government inadequately implemented the Treaty of Guadalupe-
Hildalgo in New Mexico. Today is the 152d anniversary of the signing by 
the United States of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo with Mexico. Under 
this 1848 treaty, the United States acquired the territory that is now 
California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. 
Unfortunately, the potential failure of this country to meet its 
obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildalgo has been a source of 
continuing controversy, and many New Mexicans claim they were illegally 
deprived of property rights by the federal government. For example, in 
California, about seventy-three percent of land grant claims have been 
confirmed compared to only twenty-four percent in New Mexico, which 
raises questions as to whether adjudications in New Mexico were 
equitably and fairly administered.
  We must take the opportunity to reverse the heritage of ill-will 
between the Hispanic people of New Mexico and the Federal government. 
Hispanic descendants in our state have been waiting over 150 years to 
get the federal government to fairly look into the community land 
grants issue. In 1848, land grant claimants were led to believe that 
their property rights would be honored and protected, but they have 
repeatedly been frustrated by government officials. One Surveyor 
General for New Mexico has been described by historians as ``steeped in 
prejudice against New Mexico, its people and their property rights.'' 
Other opportunists used long legal battles to acquire empires that 
extended over millions of acres--all at the expense of local Hispanics.

[[Page 565]]

  In 1891, the Surveyor General was replaced by the Court of Private 
Land Claims, but the court's procedures heavily favored the government. 
The Court of Claims required that claimants prove that the Spanish or 
Mexican granting official had the legal authority to issue the land 
grant. The claimants did not have access to necessary documentation, 
and often did not speak English. Consequently, the court rejected two-
thirds of the New Mexico claims presented before it. Ultimately, by one 
account written by Richard Griswold del Castillo, only eighty-two 
grants received Congressional confirmation. This represented only six 
percent of the total area sought by land claimants, leaving a bitter 
legacy.
  In the 105th Congress, Congressman Redmond was able to pass a bill 
out of the House of Representatives creating a Presidential Commission 
to evaluate the community land grants located in New Mexico. I was 
proud to introduce a companion bill, including a few changes based on 
the lessons I learned from talking to the heirs of some of the land 
grants; from reviewing the history; and from talking to scholars, 
historians and land grant lawyers.
  After hearings and continuing dialog with land grant heirs, we 
realized that the natural first step in the process was determining 
whether the grantees' rights had been violated under the Treaty. It 
became clear that adequate time for a thorough study of the issue was 
needed. Documents had to be gathered. Resolution of the dispute must 
take into account intervening legal rights.
  Last year, Senator Bingaman and I originally proposed that the 
Attorney General, acting through the Assistant Attorney General for 
Civil Rights, should investigate whether the United States properly 
implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which 
pertain to the protection of valid land grant claims in New Mexico. If 
that investigation found that the federal government needed to rectify 
past abuses, the President would submit a proposal to Congress to 
resolve those claims. The Senate supported our desire last fall to 
include in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill the 
requirement that the Justice Department conduct such a study. However, 
the Justice Department objected on the grounds that it could not be a 
neutral examiner of the legal obligations of the United States in this 
situation.
  The General Accounting Office (GAO) was recommended by House 
appropriators as an alternative, and language directing GAO conduct a 
study was included in the original conference report for Department of 
Justice appropriations. However, that provision was written in the 
waning hours of the conference, without time for consultation with the 
GAO, and while the focus of the conference was turned to other matters. 
Consequently, we believed that language was inadequate to serve New 
Mexico's needs. At our request, the appropriations conferees removed 
the inadequate study language from the final version of the CJS 
conference report.
  I must say that I respectfully disagree with the Justice Department's 
contention that they could not properly conduct such a study. What 
better arm of the government should investigate whether the United 
States properly implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-
Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of valid land grant claims in 
New Mexico?
  Nonetheless, after meeting with top-level representatives at the 
Department of Justice, Senator Bingaman and I met with GAO's General 
Counsel Robert Murphy and Principal Assistant Comptroller General Gene 
Dodaro to craft language that more closely reflected the needs of New 
Mexico, and the capabilities of the GAO. We have formally asked GAO to 
review how the United States implemented the provisions of the Treaty 
of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of community land 
grant claims in New Mexico.
  The GAO will submit an interim report to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, 
and to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and 
to the President of the United States, by the end of this year. A final 
report will be submitted by the end of 2002. This will allow the GAO 
adequate time to investigate this complicated issue.
  The report will include a description of the legal obligations of the 
United States to protect the rights of community land grants and its 
actions in carrying out the provisions of the treaty, an assessment of 
the issues raised concerning the implementation of the treaty 
provisions, and identification of potential methods of resolving any 
failure by the United States with regard to community land grant 
claims. The GAO shall also discuss the potential effects of resolution 
options on intervening legal rights and on Tribal land claims. In no 
event should any identification of remedies include divestiture of 
private property rights.
  The bill we introduce today directs that if the GAO concludes that 
the obligations of the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe-
Hidalgo regarding the protection of the community land grant rights do 
not appear to have been met, the Department of Justice shall prepare 
for the President a list of alternative methods to remedy the problem. 
The President will then submit to Congress recommendations to resolve 
these claims within six months of the submission of the GAO report. 
Again, we also wish to ensure that no recommendations include the 
potential divestiture of private property rights. We do not wish to 
transplant one potential injustice with another.
  Trying to do justice 150 years after the fact is complicated. I am 
hopeful that this bill can address what has been, for too long, a tale 
of land loss and bitterness between the United States and some of its 
New Mexico citizens.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 2023. A bill to provide for the establishment of Individual 
Development Accounts (IDAs) that will allow individuals and families 
with limited means an opportunity to accumulate assets, to access 
education, to own their own homes and businesses, and ultimately to 
achieve economic self-sufficiency, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                SAVINGS FOR WORKING FAMILIES ACT OF 2000

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly 
introduce with my esteemed colleagues, Senators Santorum, Abraham, 
Feinstein, Landrieu, Bayh, and Robb, the Savings for Working Families 
Act of 2000. This legislation directly addresses a problem that is now 
starting to receive the attention that it deserves: the growing wealth 
gap in our country. This legislation builds on a bipartisan effort 
begun last session to help more low-income working families join our 
country's economic mainstream by addressing that wealth gap. Passing 
this legislation will help expand our economic winner's circle to 
include more working families. Because what goes up for the richest 
families, particularly in these boom times, need not come down for 
other families.
  Today with my colleagues, I put forward a modest yet promising 
proposal that we believe will help more low income families share in 
our country's economic prosperity. Today we will introduce new 
legislation to support the expansion of Individual Development 
Accounts, or IDAs, an innovative and powerful tool to help the working 
poor save and develop the assets they need to get ahead and thrive in 
the new economy--to enter the winner's circle.
  The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 will benefit working, 
low-income families across this country to share in the unprecedented 
prosperity of our booming economy. Our bill brings together Republicans 
and Democrats, policy wonks and working mothers, and even financial 
institutions and consumers, all in support of a new approach to 
sustaining some American ideals--hard work, thrift, individual 
responsibility, and entrepreneurship. The Savings for Working Families 
Act of 2000 provides the real incentives and

[[Page 566]]

real opportunities for the working poor to build assets, both human and 
financial capital, which they in turn will be able to invest in our 
national economy.
  Today's economy is defying gravity. The stock market is jumping to 
record highs while inflation and unemployment are hovering at record 
lows. Millions of Americans are reaping the benefits of the longest 
economic expansion in our history, including millions of working middle 
class families. Unfortunately, millions more are not.
  Several recent studies have documented a growing income gap in the 
U.S.--an increasing income disparity between the rich and poor with 
declining incomes for both poor and low-income families. In addition to 
that income gap, a report released recently by the Federal Reserve 
Bank, has identified a significant asset gap in this country. A gap 
where the net worth--or assets--of the typical American family has 
risen substantially since 1989, while the net worth--or assets--of 
lower income families has actually declined during the economic boom of 
recent years.
  According to the Fed report, families earning under $10,000 a year 
had a median net worth of $1,900 in 1989. That climbed to $4,800 in 
1995, but had slipped back to $3,600 by 1998. Those families earning 
$10,000 to $25,000 saw their net worth drop from $31,000 in 1995 to 
$24,800 in 1998. More specifically, while the percent of all U.S. 
families that own a home or business has risen during the boom years of 
1995-98, the percent among lower income families has decreased. For 
example, in 1995, 36.1% of families earning under $10,000 annually 
owned their home. By 1998 the rate had dropped to 34.5%. The drop for 
families earning $10,000 to $25,000 was from 54.9% to 51.7%. The same 
story is true for the percent of lower income families owning a 
business.
  The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 will directly address 
exactly this asset gap. Our bill seeks to address this imbalance by 
dramatically expanding the use of IDAs. IDA programs do work and are 
reporting real success in spurring savings and asset building on a 
small scale in hundreds of communities across the country. Already 27 
states have passed some form of IDA program legislation.
  In my home state of Connecticut, there is today only one pilot IDA 
program in existence. A handful of low income individuals are now 
starting to take part in a strong IDA program run by the Committee for 
Training and Employment, or CTE, a cutting edge community-based 
organization providing a range of services and activities to address 
poverty issues in the greater Stamford area. In Connecticut we are 
hopeful that we will soon be seeing an expansion of IDA accounts and 
programs. A statewide IDA Task force, convened by Connecticut State 
Treasurer, Denise L. Nappier, recently released a report to jump-start 
more IDA activity in the state. Its thoughtful analysis and 
authoritative recommendations will certainly help to increase IDAs in 
our state. The Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 was drafted in 
consideration of the excellent IDA work under way in states and 
communities all across the country.
  The idea is simple, but powerful. Low income workers who put their 
hard earned dollars into IDAs would get matching funds from financial 
and other private entities. A federal tax credit will provide the 
incentives for those private sector investments in IDAs. The IDA 
savings could then be used by low income working families to develop 
assets, specifically for the purchase of a home, the pursuit of a 
postsecondary education, or to start a business. In essence, this 
legislation extends to lower income working families the type of 
incentives for building assets, such as the home mortgage interest 
deduction, preferential capital gains rates and pension funds 
exclusions and incentives, that are now available on a large scale to 
the non-poor and wealthy.
  Just last week, President Clinton underscored the promise of this 
approach in his State of the Union Address, when he put forward his 
Retirement Savings Account (RSA) proposal. Those RSAs are similar to 
the IDAs in this bill. In his proposal, the President rightly 
identified the potential of the private sector in strengthening the 
economic security of many of our most vulnerable citizens. Just as 
important, he made clear, as we do in the Savings for Working Families 
Act, that these IDA accounts are not simply an empty promise for a 
handout. They are a means to integrate more Americans into the broader 
economic mainstream.
  In drafting this new IDA legislation, our objective was to keep it 
simple and based closely on S. 895, a bill that Senator Santorum and I 
introduced last year and that enjoyed strong bipartisan support. 
Modifications in the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 are 
primarily technical in nature, recognizing that the IDA field has grown 
and evolved in the last year. We have also made a concerted effort in 
the new bill to realize the potential of critical private sector and 
nonprofit organizations to be effective IDA providers, including credit 
unions and community service organizations.
  Moving forward, we are confident that we can get this bill passed 
because it addresses a threat to our fundamental faith in the American 
dream and to the vitality and long-term stability of our national 
economy. Our bill cannot singlehandedly eliminate the wealth gap, but 
we are confident that it will help carve out a little more space in 
that winner's circle and move us a step closer to making the American 
dream real for more working families.
  Finally, I would like to thank each of the cosponsors of this bill, 
especially Senators Santorum and Abraham. Through their hard work, and 
in conjunction with the financial services industry and the IDA field, 
we have legislation that achieves a very public interest. In 
particular, I would like to note the leadership of the Corporation for 
Enterprise Development (CFED) for helping to bring the voice of the IDA 
community to this creation of this bill. With the Savings for Working 
Families Act of 2000, we are able to harness the creative forces of the 
marketplace to help secure our core democratic values, holding out the 
hope of free enterprise without the false promise of a free lunch, and 
giving some tangible meaning to those core values of community, 
opportunity and responsibility. In expanding the use of IDAs across the 
country as an empowerment tool for working families, this legislation 
speaks to our shared aspirations as Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2026. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to 
authorize appropriations for HIV/AIDS efforts; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


              THE GLOBAL AIDS PREVENTION (GAP) ACT OF 2000

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last month, the United States held 
the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council. And something 
historic happened. Under the leadership of Ambassador Holbrooke and 
Vice President Gore, the Security Council for the first time ever 
discussed an international health issue.
  The issue was the spread of AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. 
In raising the profile of this issue--in putting it before the U.N. 
Security Council--there was a recognition that the AIDS crisis is a 
security threat--a threat to the peace, stability, and prosperity of 
nations around the world.
  Nowhere is that more true than in sub-Saharan Africa, where the 
United Nations has said that AIDS is ``the worst infectious disease 
catastrophe since the bubonic plague.''
  Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, 13.7 million people in 
sub-Saharan Africa have died of AIDS. That is 84 percent of all the 
people in the world who have died of AIDS since the beginning of the 
epidemic. Last year, two-thirds of all new cases of HIV/AIDS were in 
sub-Saharan Africa. And of all the people in the world living with HIV/
AIDS, 69 percent of them live in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Mr. President, this is not just a matter of more deaths and more 
cases because there are more people. Of adults in sub-Saharan Africa 
who are aged 15-49, eight percent of them have HIV/

[[Page 567]]

AIDS. Percentages from specific countries are even more dramatic. In 
Zimbabwe, it is estimated that 26 percent of all adults aged 15-49 are 
living with the disease. In Botswana, it is 25 percent, and in Namibia, 
it is 20 percent.
  Unlike any other area of the world, the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-
Saharan Africa is predominately a woman's disease. A majority of 
infected adults--55 percent to be exact--are women.
  This creates ripple effects. When women get the disease, they often 
pass it along to their unborn babies. As a result, about 10 percent of 
the HIV/AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa are children. More 
dramatically, when women die, their children often become orphans. By 
the end of this year, the HIV/AIDS epidemic will be the reason that 
over 10 million children in sub-Saharan Africa are orphans.
  How many children is that? There are about 10 million people 18 years 
old and younger in California. Imagine if every single one of them was 
an orphan. That is what we are talking about in sub-Saharan Africa. Ten 
million children. Even worse, according to those who are working on 
this issue in Africa, the number of children orphaned there because of 
HIV/AIDS could double, triple, or even quadruple in the next decade.
  I have mentioned, Mr. President, a lot of statistics, a lot of 
numbers. but behind each number there is a face. A face of a man living 
with HIV; a face of a woman dying of AIDS; a face of an orphan with no 
family and no place to go. In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are faces upon 
faces upon faces.
  This is a global tragedy, a global catastrophe, a global emergency. 
It requires a global response. And the United States must lead the way.
  So today, I am introducing, along with my colleague on the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Gordon Smith, the Global AIDS Prevention 
Act--the GAP Act. It calls on the United States Agency for 
International Development--USAID--to make HIV/AIDS a priority in the 
foreign assistance program and to undertake a comprehensive, 
coordinated effort to combat HIV/AIDS. That effort must include primary 
prevention and education; voluntary testing and counseling; providing 
medications to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS from mother to 
child; and care for those living with HIV/AIDS.
  To accomplish this, the GAP Act would increase funding for USAID's 
international HIV/AIDS effort. Over five years, the bill would 
authorize $2 billion for the fight against AIDS, and at least $1 
billion of that is dedicated to the problem in sub-Saharan Africa.
  I want to commend the work done so far by USAID. This year, the 
Agency will spend $200 million to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. Unfortunately, 
this is the first time in six years that there has been an increase in 
the funding for this important effort. And it is still far short of 
what is needed. It is time to close the gap. Passing the GAP Act would 
be a great step forward.
  Now, Mr. President, I have talked about the problem in sub-Saharan 
Africa. That is where the problem is the worst and where the need is 
most urgent. It has also been the focus of most of the public attention 
in the last few months.
  But, be warned. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that sub-
Saharan Africa is the only place with a problem. In terms of raw 
numbers, India has more people living with HIV/AIDS than any other 
nation in the world. And experts tell us that in the near future, the 
problem may actually grow faster in Southeast Asia than in Africa.
  The GAP Act recognizes the need to be flexible. As I mentioned, it 
dedicates at least 50 percent of the funding to sub-Saharan Africa. 
USAID is actually spending about 65 percent of its AIDS dollars in that 
region now. This bill will continue to allow USAID to spend that higher 
percentage, but it will also provide the Agency with the flexibility to 
address the problem elsewhere in the world.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by Senator 
Gordon Smith. He and I worked together last summer in introducing a 
bill to fight the international tuberculosis problem. I am pleased and 
honored to join with him again in introducing bipartisan legislation to 
address an urgent international health problem.
  Mr. President, in the United States, When the epidemic first hit two 
decides ago, too many people in positions to make a difference ran 
inside, locked the doors, closed the curtains, and just hoped it would 
go away. The victims were blamed instead of helped. Those at risk were 
ridiculed instead of educated. Those who were dying were shunned 
instead of cared for.
  We did not begin to make progress against HIV/AIDS in this country 
until we discussed the problem in the light of day and until we made a 
serious investment in education, prevention, treatment, care, and 
research. Progress will not be made in Africa or anywhere else in the 
world unless we do the same. Now is not the time to pretend the problem 
does not exist or that it does not matter to us. Now is the time to 
act.
  The GAP Act would help to close the gap between what we need to fight 
this disease and what we are now spending. The GAP Act would help to 
close the GAP between the developed and the developing world in dealing 
with this epidemic. The GAP Act would help to close the gap between our 
words and our actions. I ask my colleagues to close these gaps by 
cosponsoring the GAP Act.
  Finally, I ask that a copy of the bill and a letter of endorsement 
from Family Health International be inserted in the Record.
  The material follows:

                                S. 2026

       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 ``Global AIDS Prevention Act 
     of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic 2 decades 
     ago, more than 16,300,000 people worldwide have died of the 
     disease.
       (2) More than 33,600,000 people in the world are living 
     with HIV/AIDS; more than 3,000,000 of them are children.
       (3) Sub-Saharan Africa has been particularly hard hit by 
     the disease, as the region has accounted for--
       (A) 84 percent of the worldwide deaths from HIV/AIDS;
       (B) two-thirds of the new infections in 1999; and
       (C) 69 percent of those living with the disease.
       (4) In sub-Saharan Africa, 55 percent of the infected 
     adults are women and, as a result, more than 10,000,000 
     children have been orphaned in sub-Saharan Africa because of 
     HIV/AIDS--a figure that could double or triple in the next 
     decade.
       (5) According to the United Nations, HIV/AIDS in sub-
     Saharan Africa is the ``worst infectious disease catastrophe 
     since the bubonic plague''.
       (6) The HIV/AIDS problem in Southeast Asia is growing 
     dramatically. In 1999, 20 percent of the new infections in 
     the world were in Southeast Asia.
       (7) New investments and treatments hold out promise of 
     making progress against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. For example, a 
     recent study in Uganda demonstrated that a new drug could 
     prevent almost one-half of the HIV transmissions from mothers 
     to infants, at a fraction of the cost of other treatments.
       (8) Making progress against HIV/AIDS requires a global 
     commitment, with a leadership role from the United States.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

       Section 104(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2151b(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) Congress expects the agency primarily responsible 
     for administering this part to make HIV/AIDS a priority in 
     the foreign assistance program and to undertake a 
     comprehensive, coordinated effort to combat HIV/AIDS. This 
     effort shall include providing--
       ``(i) primary prevention and education;
       ``(ii) voluntary testing and counseling;
       ``(iii) medications to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS 
     from mother to child; and
       ``(iv) care for those living with HIV/AIDS.
       ``(B)(i) In addition to amounts otherwise available for 
     such purpose, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President to carry out this paragraph $300,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2001, $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $400,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2003, $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and 
     $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) Not less than 50 percent of funds made available 
     each fiscal year under clause (i) shall be used to combat the 
     HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.

[[Page 568]]

       ``(iii) Funds appropriated under this subparagraph are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.''.
                                  ____

                                      Family Health International,


                                      Family Health Institute,

                                  Arlington, VA, January 31, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Based on Family Health International's 
     14 years of experience managing more than 1,200 HIV/AIDS 
     prevention and care projects in 60 countries--the majority in 
     sub-Saharan Africa--we strongly support The Global AIDS 
     Prevention Act of 2000.
       The need for scaling up HIV/AIDS prevention and care 
     programs in Africa is urgent. We know firsthand that the 
     United States needs to provide more assistance than it has in 
     the past to save more lives, bolster regional security and 
     protect the interests of the United States not only in sub-
     Saharan Africa, but around the world.
       We are pleased that you and members of the U.S. Senate and 
     Congress recognize the urgency of this need and the crucial 
     role the United States plays in international HIV/AIDS 
     prevention and care programming. We have the tools and 
     expertise needed to make a dramatic difference in preventing 
     more people from being infected with HIV and caring for 
     people living with HIV/AIDS. But, this difference can only be 
     made by providing the level of resources it will take to 
     greatly expand the initiatives the United States already has 
     underway with our hundreds of local partners overseas.
       We appreciate your recognition and support for the 
     critically important work being done by nongovernmental 
     organizations, including Family Health International, and the 
     United States Agency for International Development. 
     Continuing leadership by the United States on HIV/AIDSs 
     initiatives is needed more urgently now than ever before: by 
     the end of this year, some 60 million people, including over 
     a million Americans, will have been infected with HIV since 
     this global pandemic began.
       Your support and that of the U.S. Senate is needed now more 
     than ever, Senator Boxer. We need much more support to save 
     more lives, increase the basic health, well-being and 
     productivity of millions threatened by, infected with or 
     affected by HIV/AIDS, including millions of children, 
     worldwide.
           Sincerely,

                              Peter R. Lamptey, M.D. Dr. P.H.,

                                         Director, IMPACT Project,
                             Senior Vice President, AIDS Programs.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator 
Boxer in introducing the Global AIDS Prevention Act. This legislation 
authorizes $2 billion over the next five years to support the Agency 
for International Development's [AID] efforts to prevent and treat HIV/
AIDS abroad. Fully half of the funds authorized would go to fight AIDS 
in sub-Saharan Africa. The remainder will go to other areas, including 
some countries of Southeast Asia where infection rates are growing at 
alarming rates.
  While the nations of sub-Saharan Africa have faced a myriad of 
disasters in the last decades of the 20th century, few reach the 
cataclysmic proportions that the spread of AIDS has wrought on every 
level of life in that area. The statistics are mind-numbing--in some 
countries, one of four adults are living with HIV/AIDS. Life 
expectancies in those countries over the next 5 years have been slashed 
from the mid-60s to the early forties. Cumulative deaths attributable 
to AIDS numbered over 13 million by 1999 and the number of children 
orphaned by AIDS is estimated between 7 and 10 million. An estimated 1 
million children in Africa are HIV positive.
  These numbers impact every facet of life in this region of Africa. 
Where populations of adults aren't likely to enter the workforce or 
care for their children, an economy cannot prosper and grow. Where 
millions are orphaned, many times watching their parents die, a future 
that includes any basic education is likely not to happen. Where 
governments struggle with civil strife, the basic medical needs of its 
populations go unmet. I am proud of the private and religious 
organizations that have heroically struggled to fight the impact on 
families, however it is clear that the scope of the AIDS crisis 
requires additional support.
  In an area where some country infection rate reaches one out of four 
of the adult population, our diplomatic efforts must first and foremost 
include a means to stop this epidemic. While the internal political 
strife in some of these countries can be equally heartbreaking in 
outcome, the ongoing devastation spread by AIDS in some of these 
countries needs to be addressed in a broad and immediate way.
  I would like to commend my colleagues from California for her strong 
leadership in this area and I call on my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support this legislation and meet this devastating 
epidemic.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. Gramm):
  S.J. Res. 38. A joint resolution to provide for a Balanced Budget 
Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the use of Social Security 
surpluses to achieve compliance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                balanced budget constitutional amendment

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
released figures last week showing that the United States is on track 
to achieve a $23 billion on-budget surplus this fiscal year. If CBO's 
figures hold up, then the United States will have achieved a true, on-
budget surplus for the first time in 40 years.
  In addition, the United States could enjoy an on-budget surplus 
ranging somewhere between $11 billion and $69 billion in fiscal year 
2001, depending on which set of figures you use.
  But what I find truly amazing is what CBO reports could occur over 
the next 10 years. Under the most realistic assumptions about 
discretionary spending, CBO estimates we could achieve an on-budget 
surplus of nearly $900 billion.
  As good as this sounds, we must remember not to get ahead of the 
game. Just because we could obtain an on-budget surplus, does not mean 
we have obtained an on-budget surplus.
  Whatever on-budget surplus we actually achieve this year--and the 
years that follow--is predicated on the ability of Congress and the 
President to resist the urge to spend it. Unfortunately, with an amount 
of unobligated money that large, there will be calls from all segments 
of society and Government to increase funding for this program, or 
create that program, or institute massive tax cuts.
  That is why the very first priority for this year must be to oppose 
the temptation to squander this year's surplus on a pork-laden 
supplemental appropriations bill. I implore my colleagues to maintain 
the necessary discipline that will let these surpluses grow.
  Even though I am cautiously optimistic about the on-budget surpluses 
projected for this year and the next, I still do not believe we should 
treat CBO's projections as the gospel truth as we plan 10 years, or 
even 5 years, down the road.
  That is because, as most any economist will tell you, the only thing 
certain about projections is their uncertainty.
  In testimony before the House Banking Committee last year, Federal 
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said:

       . . . it's very difficult to project with any degree of 
     conviction when you get out beyond 12, 18 months.

  In addition, he stated:

       Projecting five or ten years out is a very precarious 
     activity, as I think we have demonstrated time and time 
     again.

  Last July, CBO Director Dan Crippen said, in testimony before the 
Senate Budget Committee that ``10-year budget projections are highly 
uncertain'' and that ``economic forecasting is an art that no one has 
truly mastered.'' And that is from the Director of CBO--the man in 
charge of making Congress' surplus projections.
  More alarming, as we all know, these surplus projections don't 
reflect the ticking time bomb of Social Security and Medicare costs 
that will explode when the baby boomers begin to retire--something that 
Congress and the President must address now.
  More importantly as we bask in the euphoria of these projected 
surpluses, we must not forget the sobering fact that we still have a 
$5.7 trillion national debt--a national debt that costs us more than 
$224 billion a year to service. That is more than $600 million a day in 
interest costs alone.
  Out of every Federal dollar spent, 13 cents goes to pay the interest 
on the national debt.

[[Page 569]]

  In comparison: 16 cents goes for national defense, 18 cents goes for 
nondefense discretionary spending, and 53 cents goes for entitlement 
spending.
  Here is the chart. I think most people are not familiar with it. This 
shows where the Federal dollar goes: net interest, 13 percent; national 
defense, 16 percent; nondefense discretionary spending, 18 percent; and 
53 percent for mandatory spending.
  Think about it. We spend more on interest each year than we spend on 
Medicare. It is easy to understand our difficulty in reforming Medicare 
or providing a prescription drug benefit or funding countless other 
beneficial programs when the money we could use to pay for such 
programs or activities is being spent on interest.
  That is why I believe every fiscal decision we make from here on must 
be measured against the backdrop of how it will decrease our $5.7 
trillion national debt.
  In fact, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last week, 
CBO Director Crippen stated:

       Most economists agree that saving the surpluses, paying 
     down the debt held by the public, is probably the best thing 
     that we can do relative to the economy.

  On the very same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said,

       My first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus 
     to flow through into a reduction in debt to the public. From 
     an economic point of view, that would be, by far, the best 
     means of employing it.

  Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main 
Street. It encourages more savings and investment which we really need 
in the country, and, in turn, it fuels productivity and continued 
economic growth. It also lowers interest rates, which in my view, is a 
``bird-in-the-hand'' cost reduction for most Americans, and better than 
the ``two-in-the-bush'' tax-reduction proposals floating around this 
Congress.
  Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the 
only way we can ensure that our Nation will not return to the days of 
deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn for the worse or 
a national emergency arise.
  As Alan Greenspan recently testified:

       A substantial part of the surplus . . . should be allowed 
     to reduce the debt, because you can always increase debt 
     later if you wish to, but it's effectively putting away the 
     surplus for use at a later time if you so choose.

  Even as most economists agree that the best use of any surplus is to 
apply it against the debt, the bad news is, the President and some of 
my colleagues believe the best use of this possible surplus is to 
increase spending and provide tax expenditures.
  By merely proposing his plan, as he outlined at his State of the 
Union Address, the President has assured a path of confrontation both 
with this Congress and within this Congress.
  I believe that Congress and the President need to avoid such partisan 
politics and work together on reaching an agreement as to how best to 
utilize these surpluses.
  Further, I believe the best option available to us is to agree on a 
realistic adjustment to the 1997 budget caps, do the best we can to 
respond to the needs of the American people within that limit, and use 
the balance of the surplus to pay down the national debt.
  If we can't start paying down our national debt now, with the longest 
period of economic growth in the history of our Nation, with record low 
unemployment and low inflation, when will we ever be able to do it?
  We have a moral obligation to do it now.
  I am ashamed, and so should my colleagues be ashamed, that because of 
30 years of irresponsible fiscal policies our national debt has 
increased 1,300 percent. My granddaughters, Mary Faith and Veronica, 
and my 2-week-old grandson, John, have each inherited a debt of nearly 
$21,000 because Members of Congress and our Presidents weren't willing 
to pay for the things they wanted, or, in the alternative, do without 
those items they could not afford.
  I agree with General Accounting Office Comptroller General David 
Walker, who, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee 
said:

       This generation has a stewardship responsibility to future 
     generations to reduce the debt burden they inherit, to 
     provide a strong foundation for future economic growth, and 
     to ensure that future commitments are both adequate and 
     affordable. Prudence requires making the tough choices today 
     while the economy is healthy and the workforce is relatively 
     large--before we are hit by the baby boom's demographic tidal 
     wave.

  Fortunately, that message is starting to be heard. Last month, 
Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, announced his goal of eliminating 
all federal debt held by the public by 2015. Not soon enough, but 
Speaker Hastert gets it. And I hope my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle join us in supporting debt reduction as our primary fiscal goal 
because it is in the best interest of this nation.
  In order to ensure fiscal discipline and prevent us from 
``backsliding'' into the fiscal mess we've been in for the past 30-plus 
years, I am introducing today a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
Constitution, or what I like to refer to as the ``backbone budget 
amendment.''
  I believe it is the only guarantee that we will never return to the 
days of deficit spending and the accumulation of debt, and we should do 
it now. Now! The time is right, and those of my colleagues who have 
championed this in the past should seize upon this opportunity to join 
me in this effort, because, as they know, or should know, a Balanced 
Budget Amendment is the most effective method of keeping a handle on 
spending.
  My proposal is a departure from previous proposals by stipulating 
that Social Security surpluses be exempt from deficit calculations. 
That is, a true balanced budget must be achieved without using off-
budget Social Security surpluses to finance spending in other areas. A 
federal balanced budget constitutional amendment will help Congress and 
the President make the hard decisions because they will no longer be 
able to tap the Social Security surplus.
  It is a simple matter of fact that without constitutional and 
statutory balanced budget provisions at the state and local level, many 
of our state and local governments would be in the same degree of debt 
as the federal government.
  And let me just touch on my own personal experience, because I've had 
to deal with very real financial problems in my state. Without a 
charter provision and a constitutional requirement, it would have been 
virtually impossible for me to bring the City of Cleveland out of the 
default I inherited when I was Mayor, and to deal with Ohio's $1.5 
billion deficit when I was Governor.
  Think about it--if we had a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, 
and if we were to have a President who didn't want to make tough budget 
choices on his or her own, the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment 
would give the President the backbone he or she needs to make those 
tough choices.
  And believe me, I've discovered after just 1 year in the Senate, this 
Congress needs the ``Backbone Budget Amendment'' to force us to make 
those tough choices. If we pass the amendment, I'm confident that 
three-fourths of our state legislatures would ratify it without 
question, because most of them are required by laws in their respective 
states to balance their budgets.
  And there is one other thing we need to do now, and that is enact 
Senator Domenici's biennial budget legislation.
  I am a co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe it is an 
important tool to help use federal funds more efficiently and 
strengthen Congress' proper oversight role.
  Right now, we spend far too much time debating the federal budget, 
particularly discretionary spending. Conversely, we don't devote nearly 
as much time as we should on oversight of the federal agencies because 
of the time and energy consumed by the budget resolution, budget 
reconciliation and the appropriations process.
  Indeed, when he introduced his legislation last year, Senator 
Domenici pointed out in his statement that in 1996, 73% of the votes 
taken in the Senate that year were related to the budget--often the 
same subject is voted upon 3 or 4 times a year.

[[Page 570]]

  A biennial budget will help Congress and the Executive Branch avoid 
the annual, lengthy budget and appropriations process and allow us to 
increase our attention on the government oversight portion of our job.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management 
and Restructuring, I have noted that GAO report after GAO report sits 
on the shelf and no one does anything about them because no one has the 
time to conduct the follow-up.
  And from career bureaucrats to Cabinet Secretaries, nearly everyone 
in the Executive branch knows that when they're asked to come up to the 
Hill for an oversight hearing, once it's over, it's over--rarely do 
they have to worry about any follow-up hearings because Congress just 
doesn't have the time.
  Unfortunately, that reality can create problems that impact public 
safety or national security.
  As a freshman Senator, I was shocked to learn when we had hearings 
this past year regarding Dr. Lee and the situation at the Los Alamos 
National Lab that for 20 years we've had a problem with security at the 
Department of Energy, and no one did anything about it. But GAO knew: 
they've released 31 major reports on nuclear-security problems at the 
Department since 1980. That's just incredible!
  We need the time for oversight, and the 2-year budget cycle will make 
that possible, just like it did when I was Governor of Ohio.
  There is an old saying, ``prepare for tomorrow, today.'' The 
President and Congress must make a real commitment to fiscal 
responsibility, and if we need an example, all we have to do is emulate 
what most American families do when they have extra money. They don't 
go out and start spending wildly. They look to pay off their debts--
their credit cards, their loans and their mortgages.
  With our booming economy and with inflation and unemployment at 
historically low levels, there exists the best opportunity in a 
generation to pay down the national debt, reform and preserve Social 
Security and Medicare and ensure that our Nation meets its 
constitutional obligations. Such a legacy of fiscal responsibility 
would be the best possible gift we could give to our children and 
grandchildren, and to our Nation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of my 
legislation in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                               S.J. Res.

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and 
     purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
     seven years after the date of its submission to the States 
     for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 3. Any surplus of receipts (including 
     attributable interest) over outlays of the Federal Old-Age 
     and Survivors Insurance and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Funds shall not be counted for purposes of this 
     article. Any deficit of receipts (including attributable 
     interest) relative to outlays of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Funds shall be counted for purposes of this article, 
     and must be completely offset by a surplus of all other 
     receipts over all other outlays.
       ``Section 4. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year, in which total 
     outlays do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 6. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 8. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 9. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

                          ____________________